Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BRADLEY v. AMTRAK

July 6, 1992

FREDA BRADLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION ("AMTRAK") Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRLEY WOHL KRAM

 SHIRLEY WOHL KRAM, U.S.D.J.

 In this civil rights action involving four claims of employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, four claims of employment discrimination under New York Human Rights Law Section 296, and two state tort claims, defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") moves, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order granting it summary judgment. Plaintiff Freda Bradley ("Bradley") opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, Amtrak's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

 Background1

 Bradley, a black woman, has been employed by Amtrak since November 1, 1976. Her first position with Amtrak was as a clerk/stenographer in the New York Pennsylvania Station office. In 1978, she moved to her current position as Chief Clerk in the Engineering Department. Bradley's educational background includes a high school diploma and some college credits.

 During her tenure at Amtrak, Bradley applied for eight other available positions. In each instance Amtrak hired another individual. Specifically, Bradley applied for the following positions on the following dates:

 
(1) Administrator, Small Business Development Office - March 23, 1987;
 
(2) Supervisor, Maintenance of Way Labor Relations - May 4, 1987;
 
(3) Division Administrator, Operations and Maintenance - June 30, 1988;
 
(4) Head Clerk, Passenger Services - August 29, 1988; *fn2"
 
(5) Head Clerk, Passenger Services ("Head Clerk") - September 16, 1988;
 
(6) Assistant to Vice-President-Engineering ("Assistant to V.P.") - December 19, 1988;
 
(7) Senior Administrator-Track ("Senior Administrator") - January 1, 1989;
 
(8) Division Administrator, Operations and Maintenance ("Division Administrator") - August 16, 1989.

 With respect to the latter four positions, Bradley claims that by failing to hire her, Amtrak discriminated against her based on race, in violation of both 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York Human Rights Law Section 296. Specifically, Bradley alleges that she was qualified for all four positions, but Amtrak awarded the positions to white employees who were equally or less qualified than she. Bradley also alleges that Amtrak's actions subject it to liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") and prima facie tort.

 Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for summary judgment must be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The moving party must initially satisfy a burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, which can be done merely by pointing out that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). The nonmoving party then must meet a burden of coming forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial," Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.