(DOWNLOAD) "George V. Ute Water Conservancy District" by Colorado Court of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: George V. Ute Water Conservancy District
- Author : Colorado Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 26, 1997
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
Plaintiff, Donald L. George, appeals from the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendant, Ute Water Conservancy District, on his claims for age discrimination, breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, and deprivation of property without due process. We affirm. Plaintiff began working for defendant in 1966. In May 1993, he was asked to resign. When he refused, he was terminated, and was replaced by another worker. Since the 1980's, defendant had supplied its employees, including plaintiff, with an employee handbook. The handbook provided that employment with defendant was "at will," which it defined as the ability of "either the District or an employee [to] terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason." Defendant also issued a supervisors' handbook that, because of his position as a superintendent, was distributed to plaintiff. The supervisor's handbook was "designed to interpret the Employee Handbook in more detail to enable the Supervisor to more easily answer the employee's questions regarding [the district's] policy." As relevant here, the supervisor's handbook set forth certain policies and procedures concerning discipline and termination. After his termination, plaintiff filed suit alleging, under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, that defendant had terminated him because of his age. In his breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, he specifically alleged that the discipline procedures set forth in the supervisor's handbook constituted an agreement or promise of continuing employment. On defendant's motion, the trial court entered summary judgment against plaintiff on all claims. Plaintiff appeals, asserting primarily that entry of such judgment was improper because there were disputed issues of material fact. When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we must give the moving party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the facts. Holland v. Board of County Commissioners, 883 P.2d 500 (Colo. App. 1994). Summary judgment is warranted only when there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988).