United States District Court, D. Colorado
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
S. Krieger Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Mr.
Macieyovski's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 52), and the
Defendant's (“Denver”) Response (# 59); and
Denver's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 53), Mr.
Macieyovski's response (# 60), and Denver's reply (#
Court briefly summarizes the pertinent facts here and
elaborates as necessary in its analysis, considering the
evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Macieyovski.
Macieyovski, who is of Polish heritage, was employed for many
years by Denver as a Master Trades Worker, responsible for
maintaining and repairing HVAC systems in buildings owned by
the City and County of Denver. During February 2014, Denver
conducted an audit of the Mr. Macieyovski's work orders.
Denver randomly selected 10 work orders on jobs Mr.
Macieyovski had recently completed, and upon examining the
orders and the work performed, concluded that Mr. Macieyovski
had failed to complete the tasks listed in six of the work
orders, and had taken excessive amounts of time to complete
the work on others. Denver began termination proceedings
against Mr. Macieyovski that month and formally terminated
his employment on April 22, 2014.
Macieyovski's pro se[]Complaint (# 1), alleges two
claims: (i) that his termination constitutes discrimination
on the basis of his national origin, in violation of Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and (ii) that
his termination constituted retaliation for his past
protected activity - namely, at least 5 prior EEOC charges
and three employment-related lawsuits against Denver ---
again in violation of Title VII.
parties have now moved for summary judgment.
Standard of review
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure facilitates the entry
of a judgment only if no trial is necessary. See White v.
York Intern. Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360 (10th Cir. 1995).
Summary adjudication is authorized when there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and a party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Substantive
law governs what facts are material and what issues must be
determined. It also specifies the elements that must be
proved for a given claim or defense, sets the standard of
proof and identifies the party with the burden of proof.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. v.
Producer=s Gas Co., 870 F.2d 563, 565 (10th Cir. 1989).
A factual dispute is "genuine" and summary judgment
is precluded if the evidence presented in support of and
opposition to the motion is so contradictory that, if
presented at trial, a judgment could enter for either party.
See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. When considering a
summary judgment motion, a court views all evidence in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party, thereby
favoring the right to a trial. See Garrett v. Hewlett
Packard Co., 305 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 2002).
movant has the burden of proof on a claim or defense, the
movant must establish every element of its claim or defense
by sufficient, competent evidence. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c)(1)(A). Once the moving party has met its burden, to
avoid summary judgment the responding party must present
sufficient, competent, contradictory evidence to establish a
genuine factual dispute. See Bacchus Indus., Inc. v.
Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991);
Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1131 (10th Cir.
1999). If there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact, a
trial is required. If there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact, no trial is required. The court then applies
the law to the undisputed facts and enters judgment.
moving party does not have the burden of proof at trial, it
must point to an absence of sufficient evidence to establish
the claim or defense that the non-movant is obligated to
prove. If the respondent comes forward with sufficient
competent evidence to establish a prima facie claim
or defense, a trial is required. If the respondent fails to
produce sufficient competent evidence to establish its claim
or defense, then the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
case involves cross-motions for summary judgment.
"Because the determination of whether there is a genuine
dispute as to a material factual issue turns upon who has the
burden of proof, the standard of proof and whether adequate
evidence has been submitted to support a prima facie
case or to establish a genuine dispute as to material fact,
cross motions must be evaluated independently." In
re Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities Litig.,
209 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1112 (D. Colo. 2002); see also
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita,
226 F.3d 1138, 1148 (10th Cir. 2000); Buell Cabinet Co.
v. Sudduth, 608 F.2d 431, 433 (10th Cir. 1979)
("Cross-motions for summary judgment are to be treated
separately; the denial of one does not require the grant of
Court begins with Denver's motion.
Discrimination on the ...