United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
KATHRYN A ELLIS, as trustee on behalf of GREGORY CORLISS, CHAPTER 7 Bankruptcy No. 15-43566 Plaintiff.
LARSON MOTORS INC., dba LARSON POWER SPORTS, ROBERT LARSON, SR., EDWIN DEVI, JENNIFER LARSON, Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. 29]. Plaintiff Gregory Corliss
alleges his supervisor at Larson Power Sports repeatedly
harassed, discriminated, and ultimately retaliated by firing
him during his brief employment as a sales associate at
Defendants' boat dealership in 2013. Defendants contend
Corliss was terminated after several unexcused absences from
work and move for partial summary judgment on Corliss's
race discrimination, hostile work environment, and negligent
Larson Motors Inc. d/b/a Larson Power Boats/Sports Northwest
(Larson Power Sports) is a boat and ATV dealership located in
Fife, WA. Defendant Edwin Devi is the General Manager of
Larson Power Sports and served as Corliss's supervisor
during his employment. Defendant Rob Larson, Sr. is the owner
of Larson Motors Inc.
Gregory Corliss is a former sales associate at Larson Power
Sports. Plaintiff Kathryn A. Ellis is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
trustee and brings the present lawsuit on behalf of Corliss.
was employed at Larson Power Sports for approximately three
and half months from April 2013 to July 2013. Corliss alleges
that he was the victim of relentless sexual, religious, and
racial harassment by Devi during this period. Corliss asserts
that he was fired by Devi in retaliation for filing a
complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), while Defendants maintain that Corliss was terminated
after several unexcused absences and for harassing a
filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2015 and listed his claims
against Defendants as an asset. The bankruptcy trustee
initiated this lawsuit on Corliss's behalf. Corliss
alleges seven claims for relief based on federal and
Washington law: (1) race discrimination; (2) sexual
harassment; (3) religious discrimination; (4) hostile work
environment; (5) retaliation for filing a workers'
compensation claim; (6) retaliation for filing a
discrimination claim with the EEOC; and (7) negligent
supervision and retention. Dkt. 2. The Court has sufficient
information to rule on the motion and oral argument will not
aid in rendering a decision.
judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In determining whether an issue of fact
exists, the Court must view all evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor. Anderson Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986); Bagdadi v.
Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996). A genuine
issue of material fact exists where there is sufficient
evidence for a reasonable factfinder to find for the
nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The
inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is
so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of
law.” Id. at 251-52. The moving party bears
the initial burden of showing that there is no evidence which
supports an element essential to the nonmovant's claim.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Once the movant has met this burden, the nonmoving party then
must show that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. If the nonmoving party
fails to establish the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact, “the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477
U.S. at 323-24.
move for summary judgment on Corliss's race
discrimination, hostile work environment, and negligent
supervision claims. ...