DocketNumber: No. 65434 S
Judges: WALSH, J.
Filed Date: 3/25/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Plaintiff was employed by MMH from November 3, 1980, until October 6, 1989. The last position she held was Clinical Coordinator, to which she was promoted in January of 1986. In August of 1989 plaintiff was informed by her supervisor that she would be removed from the position, and it is the plaintiff's position that this meeting and subsequent events led to her forced resignation from her job.
The record before the court reflects that the plaintiff filed an action in federal court on November 6, 1990, alleging age discrimination and four state law claims. Summary judgment on the age discrimination claim was granted by the court, Nevas, J., on December 26, 1991, and the state law claims were eventually dismissed. The plaintiff then brought the current action against MMH in Superior Court.
On October 19, 1993, MMH filed a motion for summary judgment on each count of the plaintiff's complaint, asserting a variety of factual and legal conclusions as grounds for its motion. Included with the motion was a "Statement of Facts Not In Dispute", as well as twenty-one exhibits including deposition excerpts, pleadings in the prior federal action, employment-related documents and affidavits from MMH. The plaintiff filed its objection to the motion on January 14, 1994, along with accompanying exhibits and affidavits, and has strenuously disputed the defendant's "Facts Not in Dispute" both at oral argument and in subsequent pleadings.
"The motion for summary judgment is designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried." Wilson v. New Haven,
[T]he "genuine issue" aspect of summary judgment procedure requires the parties to bring forward before trial evidentiary facts, or substantial evidence outside the pleadings, from which the material facts alleged in the pleadings can warrantably be inferred. United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Comm'n,
The Court is persuaded that a genuine issue of mixed law and fact is present as to the alleged terms of the employment contract between the parties and as to any alleged breach. See Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital,
Furthermore, the disclaimer in the employee policy manual relied upon by defendant to defeat the implied contract claim is untitled, in fine print, and on a signature page allegedly unsigned by the plaintiff. A sufficient factual dispute exists to prevent this court from entering judgment as a matter of law that the disclaimer is valid and binding. See Elliff v. St. Vincent's Medical Center,
Finally, as to the defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims, the court is equally unpersuaded that no genuine issue of fact is present. The court is not persuaded based on the defendant's characterization of the facts that the plaintiff cannot prove either the publication of a statement or its falsity. Summary judgment will not be granted based on one party's characterization of disputed facts. "The function of the trial court, in summary judgment proceedings, is not to decide issues of material fact but rather to determine whether any such issues exist." Telesco v. Telesco,
JOHN WALSH, J.