Marroquin v. Exxon Mobile Corporation, No. 1:2008cv00391 - Document 124 (E.D. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 81 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 5/27/09. (tfitz, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA L Alexandria Division IS 2 7 /:3 JUAN CARLOS CLLf'K. U S. D.:_ i r.\ '. .1 O^ MARROQUIN, ALEXANDRIA. V.'RG'NIA Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. EXXON MOBIL 08-391 CORPORATION d/b/a ExxonMobil Lubricants & Petroleum Specialties Company, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before Summary Judgment; the Court on Defendant's Motion for Plaintiff's Motion in Limine; Motion for Ruling on Objections Deposition Designations to Lift Motion to Witnesses, Plaintiff's Exhibits and Filed by the Parties; Plaintiff's Motion Protective Order with Sealing Provisions; in Limine; Witnesses, Defendant's Exhibits, Courtroom and Counter- and a Joint Motion for Evidence to the Court's Presentation Equipment in the for Trial. Plaintiff, Defendant, for Ruling on Objections Deposition Designations, Deposition Designations; Permission to Use Motion Defendant's his Juan Carlos Marroquin, former employer - Petroleum Specialties Company - brought the ExxonMobil on April 24, this suit against Lubricants 2008. & Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, discriminated against him on the basis of his race and/or national origin, affecting the terms, of his employment, termination. conditions, and privileges and resulting in his discriminatory Plaintiff also claims that employees of Defendant knowingly made materially false and misleading statements about the circumstances of his termination, conduct that constitutes defamation and defamation per se under Virginia law. On April employment. 26, At for Defendant 2007, the Defendant terminated Plaintiff's time of his termination followed Defendant's investigation of held in Miami, a marketing event 2007 February 2, Super Bowl game 2007 investigation found that Plaintiff Defendant terminated, of "Super Bowl"), February 5, from 2007. This the failed to exercise appropriate managerial Defendant several the National in the planning and execution of investigation, of (the through Monday, oversight and violated several also internal co-sponsored by Defendant and Florida during the weekend of Football League's event He was Defendant's highest ranking executive of Hispanic descent. Plaintiff's Friday, Plaintiff had worked for approximately 20 years and held the position of Americas Marketing Manager. United States termination, Plaintiff's company policies. Following the terminated Plaintiff's employment. disciplined, or subordinates and forced the supervisors resignation for their behavior with respect to the event. Among disciplined or terminated by Defendant participation in was the the events of the employees for their planning of and the Super Bowl weekend, Plaintiff only non-Caucasian. In late 2006, client of Defendant's, charitable February Cadillac, an automobile manufacturer and approached Defendant about celebrity go-kart race 3, 2007 - actively participating significant business sponsorship, to be held on Saturday, the day before sponsorship opportunity arose, the Super Bowl. When this co- Defendant's Marketing Group was in an effort arrangement by providing a co-sponsoring a finalize a with Cadillac. forum socialize with Cadillac dealers, to financially The for Defendant's seemed co- executives to like an opportunity to develop the existing relationship with Cadillac and generate additional business. Furthermore, event promised additional these opportunities, financial benefits. it was proposed that under the management of the the media coverage of Plaintiff, move the To capitalize on the Marketing Group, forward with support of co-sponsorship. Plaintiff subordinate, delegated organization of Benjamin Tait. received an email necessary from Tait, to commit Defendant's tax, On December to legal, the confirming the 8, event 2006, that all to his Plaintiff the endorsements event had been received from and public affairs departments. Plaintiff agreed to Defendant's participation as a co-sponsor and approved the cost. Defendant and Cadillac the co-sponsorship. shared naming of - and was also For its the event - entitled the $200,000.00, the to advertise received four tickets later receive evenly split $400,000.00 Defendant "Cadillac / Mobil Super Bowl. two additional Super Bowl of received 1 Grand Prix" its participation. to the cost Defendant Defendant would tickets from its external marketing company at no additional cost. Around the the first week of January 2007, co-sponsorship with Mike Mullins, of Marketing. He asked Mullins sponsored event and also asked Mullins Kohlenberger, Plaintiff the game, additional President game the following day. President, intended participation. and that if he Mullins He Gerald told and Kohlenberger they would each bring a guest. Following this instructed Tait Defendant's Vice to speak with Defendant's about his discussed if he planned to attend the co- Super Bowl that he would do so, attended the Plaintiff conversation with Mullins, Plaintiff to contact Cadillac about obtaining four tickets to the Super Bowl game. Cadillac responded that it could not provide additional tickets as part of the cosponsorship package, purchased. tickets Plaintiff at a cost of but that four additional then directed Tait tickets to purchase approximately $13,000.00. could be those During the week of Plaintiff game, that he January 22, 2007, Mullins and Kohlenberger would attend each with a guest. Plaintiff never confirmed with the informed Mullins Kohlenberger that he had purchased four Super Bowl addition to tickets or in those already obtained through the co-sponsorship. As planning for the co-sponsorship continued, subordinate, for the Super Bowl Tait, solicited tickets same weekend. He Plaintiff's to private parties contacted Cadillac scheduled and Defendant's advertising agency about obtaining eight tickets would be hosted by Defendant's vendors ESPN and Sports Illustrated - on the evening of eventually secured tickets - Saturday, to parties February 3, 2007. that Tait to the ESPN party from the advertising agency. On the evening of arrived in Miami hotel events. the weekend. Plaintiff and his room - February 2, for the weekend's son accompanied him for weekend, Friday, Over 2007, Plaintiff Plaintiff's wife and the course of the family made a number of charges to the including meals later charged to a corporate and a pay-per-view movie credit card - that were issued by Defendant to Plaintiff. While in Miami, Plaintiff participated in two events using tickets obtained through Defendant. with his wife using the the Super Bowl He attended the ESPN party tickets solicited by Tait, game with his son. and attended Shortly after returning from Miami, Division initiated an investigation into who organized, weekend's supervised, and participated in the Kohlenberger returning from Miami, he for his Plaintiff to ask how Defendant could be responded that tickets. tickets because Plaintiff the tickets were for the Controller. the face When a to discuss the matter, Super Bowl game was Kohlenberger should not have to pay a Senior Staff Auditor with more than 20 years sponsored by Defendant, the reimbursed, submitted a check to Defendant's that to reimburse its co-sponsorship. Controller employee contacted Plaintiff explained upon contacted repayment was unnecessary because Kohlenberger nonetheless or even Super Bowl, When his assistant provided to Defendant as part of the the instructed his assistant Defendant Plaintiff Super Bowl conducted no company business spoke with any Cadillac dealers while at of the actions of employees events. Because value Defendant's Audit an event for tickets personally. Bud Carr, experience was assigned four of Defendant's Following the investigation. employment policies were actions he discovered Entertainment, to Conflicts of He of concluded that implicated by the Interest, Ethics, Gifts and and Corporate Assets. this investigation, J. Stephen Simon, Defendant's Senior Vice President and member of its Board of Directors, considered Carr's report, reviewed the policy violations, made disciplinary determinations. On April 26, 2007, and the employees investigated by Carr were called to the office of Defendant's Executive Vice President, they were where informed of Defendant's disciplinary decisions. Several employees, of James Marcogliese, strategic accounts including Jeffrey Eckstein, in Defendant's Sales Division, subordinate Jeffrey Martin, Defendant gave Mullins, the option of the manager resignation or and his received written reprimands. Plaintiff's immediate termination. resignation caused him a significant Mullins' financial shares of Defendant's restricted stock. supervisor, loss forced in forfeited He also lost his discretionary bonus. Defendant determined that Kohlenberger's company practices and procedures was Super Bowl game with his Yet, having lost Defendant 2008, the son using tickets paid for by Defendant. faith in his ability to Kohlenberger retired. Defendant Onofrio, limited to his attending the lead forced Kohlenberger to retire at last year of his He age the company, 55. In February received no restricted stock in employment. immediately terminated another of violation of Plaintiff's Plaintiff, subordinates. Tait, and Brad Plaintiff's termination letter explained that he failed to exercise adequate management oversight of the weekend's events and violated company policy. Following these meetings, taken back to their offices. collect the terminated employees were They were given an opportunity to their personal belongings and were then escorted from the premises. Summary judgment issue as is appropriate where to any material fact. a motion for summary judgment opposing party has See Fed. the burden of Indus. 475 574, A genuine is (1986). Civ. Co. v. in favor of Liberty Lobby. Inc., issue the non-moving party. 477 by the non-moving party material fact." 1985); see 411-12 (4th Cir. 1986). Hardy, proof at case, a party has Once create 769 jury could return a See Anderson v. Mere a genuine F.2d 213, Serv., is 214 v. Catrett, (4th Cir. 800 F.2d 409, appropriate when, "showing sufficient an element essential that party will speculation issue of Inc.. failed to make a Celotex Corp. the exists when there (1986) . Summary judgment and on which trial." 248 United Parcel to establish the existence of party's 242, "cannot Beale v. also Ash v. after discovery, U.S. 56{c). Zenith Radio Corp.. sufficient evidence on which a reasonable verdict P. showing that a genuine dispute See Matsushita Elec. 586-87 R. is no genuine is properly made and supported, exists. U.S. there bear 477 to that the burden of U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Claims brought under 42 same method of proof v. Potomac 2 002) . Elec. as § 1981 are subject 312 F.3d begins with 645, the 649 n. burden of prima facie case of establishes a prima facie case, 1 non-discriminatory termination. rationale If preponderance of for the defendant produces the evidence (4th Cir. If the plaintiff the defendant must articulate a reason for the termination, Thompson establishing a discriminatory termination. legitimate, to the claims brought under Title VII. Power Co., The plaintiff U.S.C. the this plaintiff's non-discriminatory the plaintiff must that his then prove by a former employer's stated reason for the adverse employment action was merely pretextual. McDonnell Douglas 411 U.S. Holland v. Wash. 2007), cert, Corp. Homes. denied. v. Green. Inc.. 128 S. In a case that alleges 487 Ct. F.3d 208, 955 792, 802-03 213-14 (1973); (4th Cir. (2008). racially discriminatory discipline or discharge and requires a comparison of disciplinary actions against different employees, plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing that: is a member of (ii) (i) he his prohibited conduct that of employees "was comparable a protected class; in seriousness" outside his protected class; and (iii) discipline was more severe than that enforced against employees outside his protected class. Corp.. 988 F.2d 507, 511 (4th Cir. Cook v. 1993). his the CSX Transp. to Defendant's in a reasons for Plaintiff's termination letter and in an internal Defendant's disciplinary actions. termination to Plaintiff Management adequate has termination are audit Defendant's captured that preceded letter of stated: concluded management that you oversight failed of to exercise the Company's participation in activities related to the Super Bowl and that in addition you took specific actions that violated established practices and procedures of the Corporation. Those specific actions included: ¢ Approving an improper accrual into 2006 of $73,000 for services that the Company did not receive until 2007; ¢ Taking your son to supervisor's approval, the game, without your on a ticket paid for by the Company; ¢ Charging to the Permitting ¢ Company meals subordinates your for your family; to solicit a and Company customer and several vendors for tickets to various Super Bowl First, events. Plaintiff's actions had violated Defendant's Corporate Assets policy. to the four sponsorship, Bowl Super Bowl Plaintiff The audit determined that tickets authorized tickets with corporate $13,000.00. credit for his card. the audit the co- the purchase of four more - expense an additional Super of over room expenses, wife's and son's meals, to his Company policy authorized use of card for business purposes Second, funds through Plaintiff charged all of his including expenses corporate received in addition that only. cited a violation of 10 Defendant's Conflict of Interest policy. subordinates were private parties Third, the The audit found that Plaintiff knew his soliciting tickets to the Super Bowl and from Defendant's customers audit determined that and vendors. Plaintiff violated Defendant's Gifts and Entertainment policy. The audit found that Plaintiff did not obtain prior approval before bringing his to the Super Bowl game on a company-paid ticket, his wife attended a private son and that he and Super Bowl party using $500.00 tickets solicited from Defendant's advertising agency. Finally, the audit cited instances violated Defendant's Ethics policy. The audit found that Tait accrued $73,672.00 for the sponsorship to the 2006 marketing budget and that approved this accrual. misled management additional Super Bowl The audit also found that Plaintiff Plaintiff the tickets. show that he is a member of a protected and that employees outside of his protected class engaged in misconduct of comparable lesser discipline. Cir. Super Bowl weekend and co- regarding the source and value of Plaintiff must class, 2007 in which Plaintiff 1985). seriousness See Moore v. Plaintiff claims to his Charlotte. 754 own, but F.2d that other employees received 1100 (4th engaged in the same conduct and received substantially lesser discipline. However, lenient the record shows discipline did not that those who in fact 11 engage received comparatively in conduct comparable to Plaintiff's, while those who behaved similarly were severe disciplinary action. Plaintiff was the subject to supervisor of those who Defendant determined had seriously violated company policies. option of Like them, he was resignation. immediately terminated with no Plaintiff was the subordinate of whose behavior violated company policy or fell managerial expectations, those short of but who did not actively participate in the planning and execution of the co-sponsorship or the other events of the Super Bowl weekend. disciplined severely but not Those individuals were immediately terminated. The first group of disciplined employees includes those who received oral and written reprimands - Jeffrey Eckstein and his subordinate Jeffrey Martin. several not Though Plaintiff attempts comparisons between himself and Eckstein, support these comparisons. the record does The Plaintiff had a unique responsibility for the organization and execution of sponsorship. to draw the co- Plaintiff approved the co-sponsorship and delegated the organization and execution of the event to his subordinate Tait. Plaintiff claims that Eckstein solicited additional Super Bowl tickets from Defendant's advertising agency, does not support this assertion. but the record Defendant's audit found that Eckstein's only violation of company policy was to attend a private Super Bowl party with tickets solicited from Defendant's 12 advertising agency. The second group of disciplined employees includes and those others who were immediately terminated. concluded that Plaintiff, several along with Tait company policies. expenses Like Tait, to Defendant and attended a private with tickets Defendant and Onofrio, Plaintiff Plaintiff violated charged personal Super Bowl party solicited from Defendant's advertising agency. Plaintiff was also found to have attended the Super Bowl game with his son on a company-paid ticket without prior approval. Defendant also supervision of Tait concluded that Plaintiff's represented a failure Plaintiff knew of Tait's solicitation of Bowl and private parties. even though this Yet he did not improper in management. tickets for the Super correct Tait's actions, leveraging of Defendant's advertising relationship with vendors violated company policy. also approved Tait's manipulated accrual of expenses 2007 Super Bowl weekend to the 2006 Plaintiff from the budget. The third and final group of disciplined employees Mullins and Kohlenberger. includes Defendant determined that like Plaintiff these executives did use improper judgment and exercised inadequate oversight of their subordinates with respect to the co-sponsorship. Yet they did not participate Plaintiff's authorization and organization of Furthermore, in the co-sponsorship. their specific violations of company policies were 13 not as severe as expenses guests to the Plaintiff's. corporate They did not credit card. Though they brought to the Super Bowl without permission, knowingly attend the game using one of tickets purchased by Defendant, purchase of Defendant the additional initiated its Kohlenberger's attempt reimbursing the matter was less its Super Bowl for his significant case tickets. their culpability in this investigation found that Mullins' separation was significant immediate. suffered significant separation from the Cook. 988 F.2d at prove a set of violation than Kohlenberger's, Kohlenberger's and forced Both Kohlenberger and financial losses due to their forced Corporation. Establishing a prima termination is not a Defendant demanded involuntary separation from the resignation came the following year. Mullins In fact, this matter following than Plaintiff's, company policies was more in his tickets. investigation of conclusion that Defendant's four additional and they did not authorize the both Kohlenberger's and Mullins' company. the they did not to mitigate any perceived wrongdoing by company In spite of of charge personal facie case of "precise, 512. discriminatory mechanically-imposed formulation." "[T]he burden is on the plaintiff circumstantial facts, which, legitimate non-discriminatory explanation, with reasonable probability that to in the absence of leads one a to conclude the action taken against him was 14 the product of discrimination." Id. Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment merely by singling out "one prior instance of less the protected class . examine record the "entire particular piece of Plaintiff has . . severe ." Id. . . . treatment at 508-09. rather severe class that The evidence contained within no facts that would raise the discipline than that meted out whose behavior was Court must Plaintiff it." an comparable Id. at 512. inference of In its entirety, the received was no more to employees outside of of investigation found that a person outside than seizing upon a discriminatory intent on Defendant's part. record shows of his protected seriousness. Plaintiff's violations of The company policies were uniquely severe actions distinguishing him from his fellow employees. four additional Defendant. Plaintiff Super Bowl tickets Plaintiff did so, family member's attendance at supervisors about the source Even assuming that alone at authorized the purchase at significant expense least in part, the Super Bowl, and cost of of the to to facilitate a and then misled his those tickets. Plaintiff established a prima facie case, Defendant has articulated a non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff's Plaintiff employer's pretext termination. The burden, therefore, "to prove by a preponderance of stated reasons 'were not for discrimination.'" its Holland. 15 the evidence that true 487 remains with reasons, F.3d at 214 the but were (quoting a Hill v. Cir. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mcrmt., 2004) F.3d 277, 285 (4th (en bane)). This court must weigh "the probative value the employer's explanation is quoting Reeves v. 149 354 (2000). false." Holland, Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Summary judgment "created only a weak issue of is appropriate fact as of 487 Inc.. if to whether the proof that F.3d at 215, 530 U.S. 133, the Plaintiff the employer's reasons were untrue and there was abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination had occurred." quoting Reeves. This 530 U.S. Court must not at Id.. 148. substitute its judgment for the good faith decisions of Defendant in exercising discipline over its employees. As in Title VII sit as a kind of of litigation, 293, 298-99 . must . . ." (4th Cir. In measuring the "does not super-personnel department weighing the prudence employment decisions made by firms discrimination a federal court charged with employment DeJarnette v. 1998) Corning. Inc.. 133 F.3d (internal quotation marks omitted). seriousness of employee misconduct, take note that an employer is free this Court to develop its own criteria for employment decisions, so long as they are not race- based. F.3d 614, If "it Beall v. the employer's Abbott Labs.. 130 619 reason for termination is not (4th Cir. 1997). forbidden by law, is not our province to decide whether the reason was wise, fair, or even correct, ultimately, 16 so long as it truly was the reason for 299 the plaintiff's DeJarnette, 133 F.3d at (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant Plaintiff's presents Defendant's stated reasons F.2d 1281, 1288 Affairs v. Burdine, for the Gairola v. (4th Cir. 1985) 450 U.S. by Defendant's the for institutional to review employee misconduct, termination were Va. Dep't of (quoting Tex. 248, 258 Gen. Dept. (1981)). to Defendant's Audit Department, assigned to reasons In part because of had in place reasonably specific." referred non-discriminatory termination. mechanisms Defendant was termination." the case and produced a where "clear and Servs.. Of 753 Cmtv. The matter was a career auditor thorough report for use executives when making their disciplinary decisions. Plaintiff must produce proffered reasons for his substantial evidence of "[A] 456 the investigation. claiming that for own assertions of insufficient to counter legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (4th Cir. procedural objections that Defendant's plaintiff's themselves are an adverse employment action." 871 F.2d 452, evidence termination were a pretext underlying discrimination. discrimination in and of some Williams v. 1989). Cerberonics, for Inc., Plaintiff makes a series of to the manner in which Defendant conducted He also suggests a discriminatory motive, Carr and Simon knew he was "clearly had an agenda in conducting 17 the Hispanic and that investigation, Carr and made the recommendations violations." suggesting simply no evidence Plaintiffs' committed policy in the record, Plaintiff's Complaint defamation and defamation identifies seven allegedly In his Opposition to Summary Judgment, Plaintiff restricts his argument to only two of statements. First, termination, Kohlenberger allegedly told Plaintiff's that Plaintiff was Second, immediately following terminated for doing "inappropriate" fellow employee that and established an in terms of the (i) with, requisite (iii) F.2d 1087, Harris. (1985). 1092 publication of, intent. (4th Cir. 325 S.E.2d 713 (ii) (Va. commitment Plaintiff must an actionable 1985), cert, denied. are S.E.2d 203, 2005), that but 18 false, Inc. 472 U.S. 993 v. 1032 Plaintiff must the evidence not only that statements (Va. Inc.. See generally Gazette. allegedly defamatory 207 statement Knight-Ridder. To prevail on his claim for defamation, prove by a preponderance of to dealings. Chapin v. 1993). Jeff Martin co-sponsorship was To prove defamation under Virginia law, demonstrate assistant "something very bad." "improper" future business these Plaintiff's following a business meeting in Mexico, allegedly told a Cadillac however, race or ethnicity had any bearing on second claim alleges defamatory statements. however, or had not, investigation or disciplinary determinations. Plaintiff's per se. to who had, is There that Defendant's as Jordan v. the Kollman. they are defamatory, so 612 "harm[ing] the reputation of estimation of the another as community or (Second) lower him in the to deter third persons associating or dealing with him." (quoting Restatement to Chapin. of Torts § 993 559 from F.2d at 1092 (1977)). If statements at issue were objectively true, not defamatory, protected expressions the no actionable defamation. 683, 686 Am. {Va. of opinion, Commc'ns. 2002). there Network, is Inc. Whether a statement v. Williams. 568 is actionable is a law to be determined by this at (citing Chaves v. Plaintiff not produce any evidence demonstrating 1985)). that these does statements were Johnson. false. 335 Jordan, S.E.2d matter of 206-07 Court. or S.E.2d 97, While he objects 612 S.E.2d 101 (Va. to his termination and to his former employer's characterization of his behavior, it is objectively true that Defendant fired Plaintiff after an investigation found that he violated a number of corporate policies and misled supervisors and investigators about his wrongdoing. The statements Plaintiff cites are reasonable short-hand descriptions for the causes of his dismissal. substantiate his claim for defamation, than reassert that Plaintiff does Yet to little more the documented investigation and stated rationale for his termination were a pretext for discrimination. Also, these statements are not defamatory. statement must ridiculous," "make the plaintiff appear odious, A defamatory infamous, and must be more than "[m]erely offensive or 19 or unpleasant." omitted). 993 F.2d at 1092 (internal quotations While perhaps upsetting to Plaintiff, to show that his Chapin. these mild assessments of his he is not able termination diminished reputation to anyone. Even if Plaintiff produced evidence demonstrating that statements of were defamatory, opinion. Statements depend largely upon the of of they would be protected expressions opinion are 858, Fuste v. 861-62 (Va. "relative speaker's viewpoint," fact are those which are false." these in nature whereas and statements "capable of being proven true or Riverside Healthcare Ass'n. Inc.. 575 S.E.2d 2003). The statements cited by Plaintiff are vague and subjective, and they do not contain a "provably false factual connotation." Fuste. citing Yeagle v. 575 S.E.2d at S.E.2d 136, 137 861, (Va. 1998). The characterization of Plaintiff's "very bad" "improper" commitment with a customer are expressions of opinion rest Network. "inappropriate," 497 conduct as that or Collegiate Times. on each speaker's perspective. Inc., management 568 team was S.E.2d at 686 replaced due effective operations" (holding to or creating an See, e.g.. that a "failure Commc'ns statement that to establish was either objectively true or opinion). The comments cited by Plaintiff were an opinion of magnitude of Am. Plaintiff's wrongdoing that Plaintiff's claim that these 20 the scope and cannot be proven false. statements are also defamation per se fails. (i) Statements constitute defamation per se when they impute to a person unfitness to perform the duties of his employment, duties; or or trade. 449-50 must be or want of (ii) prejudice such a person in his or her profession Tronfeld v. (Va. integrity in the discharge of those 2006). Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.. 636 S.E.2d 447, To be actionable under this test, "necessarily hurtful a statement in its effect upon plaintiff's business and must affect him in his particular trade or occupation," and there must be "a nexus between the content of the defamatory statement and the skills or character required to carry out the particular occupation of the plaintiff." v. Moore. omitted). 275 S.E.2d 632, 636 (Va. 1981) Fleming (internal quotation The vague statements of Kohlenberger and Martin do not establish the required nexus with Plaintiff's particular employment responsibilities or ability to perform his job that would support Plaintiff's claim of defamation per se. For the reasons stated above, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim of discriminatory termination, se. and on the claim of defamation and defamation per An appropriate order shall issue. 21 /§/ Claude M. Hilton United States District Judge Alexandria, May j27 , Virginia 2009 22
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
