Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Foreman v. Western Freightways, LLC

United States District Court, D. Colorado

August 1, 2013

DAMON FOREMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN FREIGHTWAYS, LLC; and NEW CENTURY TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendants

Page 1271

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1272

For Damon Foreman, Plaintiff: Susan R. Hahn, Susan R. Hahn LLC, Law Office of, Littleton, CO.

For Western Freightways, LLC, New Century Transportation, Inc., Defendants: Janet Ann Savage, Sybil Ruth Kisken, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP-Denver, Denver, CO.

OPINION

Page 1273

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger, Chief United States District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 51, as amended # 52), Mr. Foreman's response (# 59), and the Defendants' reply (# 64).

FACTS

The Court briefly summarizes the facts here, and elaborates as necessary in its analysis. In March 2005, Mr. Foreman, a black male who was age 62 at the time of the key events herein, was hired by Defendant Western Freightways (" Western" ) as an Account Executive. His job duties were in the nature of sales, locating customers

Page 1274

with loads to ship and persuading them to use Western to ship them. Shortly after Mr. Foreman began working at Western, the company was acquired by Defendant New Century Transportation (" New Century" ). The acquisition resulted in some changes to Mr. Foreman's supervision, but not to his job duties.

Beginning in July 2008, the Defendants issued Mr. Foreman a written warning, citing a decline in the sales revenue he was generating. On January 30, 2009, the Defendants issued Mr. Foreman two separate written warnings, one for failing to communicate certain information to dispatchers and a second one citing several instances in which Mr. Foreman mishandled dealings with a customer. In March 2009, the Defendants put Mr. Foreman on a 90-day Performance Improvement Plan (" PIP" ), requiring him to make a certain number of calls to customers per month and to improve his revenue generation, among other things. On June 19, 2009, the Defendants noted that Mr. Foreman had " not achieved the goals as set forth [but had] made some progress," and extended the PIP for an additional 60 days. In August 2009, the Defendants again advised Mr. Foreman that " your performance continues to remain at an unacceptable level," giving him an additional ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.