![]() ![]() Rather than argue on appeal that her response to this motion was adequate to carry her burden to set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred based on specific facts and arguments not brought to its attention. Wal-Mart carried its initial burden of production on summary judgment, taking each incident of harassment alleged in the complaint and demonstrating with numerous references to attached exhibits that Wal-Mart either lacked actual or constructive notice of the incident or that it adequately responded thereto. Plaintiff gives insufficient attention to the procedural posture of this appeal and to the important policies furthered by the rules governing the relationship between the district and circuit courts. Thus, although our review is de novo, we conduct that review from the perspective of the district court at the time it made its ruling, ordinarily limiting our review to the materials adequately brought to the attention of the district court by the parties. To accomplish this, the facts must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein. #Inmr forklift parts trial#If the movant carries this initial burden, the nonmovant that would bear the burden of persuasion at trial may not simply rest upon its pleadings the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and "set forth specific facts" that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant. If there is no genuine issue of material fact, we next determine whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law. If a party that would bear the burden of persuasion at trial does not come forward with sufficient evidence on an essential element of its prima facie case, all issues concerning all other elements of the claim and any defenses become immaterial. An issue of fact is "material" if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim. An issue is "genuine" if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way. In applying this standard, we view the factual record and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom most favorably to the nonmovant. Summary judgment is proper if the movant demonstrates that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and that it is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo applying the same standard as the district court embodied in Rule 56(c). Plaintiff left work the next day, taking a leave of absence from Novemuntil January 4, 1995, when she resigned. Clauser nevertheless took the opportunity to explain Wal-Mart's sexual harassment policy to Mr. Clauser was unable to find anyone who could corroborate Plaintiff's account. Clauser counseled him on Wal-Mart's sexual harassment policy and documented this action in Mr. Runyon and a Larry Medina, thought to be the Larry harasser. On November 18, Plaintiff reported these events to Mr. On November 12, 1994, Steve Runyon ran his fingers through Plaintiff's hair, touching her head and neck, in an attempt to talk her out of taking his forklift. ![]() She cannot recall specifically when but on November 18, she reported this incident. #Inmr forklift parts full#On November 9, 1994, an employee referred to in the record as Larry (because Plaintiff cannot recall his full name) ran his hand down Plaintiff's back to the tailbone. After this call, Plaintiff was frightened and hid under a desk to avoid him. McFarland called Plaintiff from a phone at Wal-Mart and told her that he thought she would be fun in bed and that he wanted to meet her in the parts room to have sex. ![]() Berwick climbed on the forklift that Plaintiff was operating and wrapped his leg around her. She poured water on the foam seats of their cart so that when they sat down their pants were soaked, and they had wet pants the rest of the day. The same day, Plaintiff played a practical joke on Mr. McFarland shook a bottle of baby powder at her and said they wanted to powder her bottom. On August 14, 1994, incidents occurred which Plaintiff did report, involving maintenance coworkers Matt Berwick and Ray McFarland. Other coworkers harassed Plaintiff in various additional incidents, but Plaintiff either did not report them, or cannot recall specifically when or what she may have said to anyone about them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |