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.

EVANS v. WALDORF-ASTORIA CORP.

June 30, 1993

MARCIA CECILIA EVANS, Plaintiff,
v.
WALDORF-ASTORIA CORPORATION a/k/a HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: STERLING JOHNSON, JR.

 JOHNSON, District Judge.

 Hilton Hotels Corporation ("Defendant") moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Defendant claims that plaintiff Marcia Cecilia Evans ("Plaintiff") is barred from bringing this action by a voluntary settlement agreement ("Agreement") entered into by parties in January, 1987. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment.

 BACKGROUND

 Defendant employed plaintiff as a room service order taker, in June, 1985 and from September, 1985 until September, 1986 when defendant terminated her employment. Defendant asserts that plaintiff's termination resulted from her unsatisfactory job performance. Plaintiff claims that she was terminated because she refused the sexual advances of a supervisor.

 In October, 1986, plaintiff filed charges against defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the New York State Division of Human Rights ("State"), claiming that she had been terminated and sexually harassed in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ┬ž 2000e et seq.. ("Title VII") Plaintiff additionally filed a grievance with her employer through her union representative.

 As a result of the grievance procedure, a hearing was held before an impartial chair on January 8, 1987. At this hearing plaintiff was represented by Gloria LeJeune, a business representative with the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council ("Union") and John Mara, an attorney for the union. After several hours of negotiation, parties arrived at the agreement which was later signed by plaintiff, representatives of the union, and defendant's attorney and corporate officer. In the agreement, defendant agreed to rescind plaintiffs' discharge, accept her voluntary resignation and pay the plaintiff $ 2,750 in settlement of her claims. Plaintiff, in turn agreed to withdraw her grievance filed with the union and the charges filed with the EEOC and the State.

 By the execution of the agreement, defendant rescinded plaintiff's discharge and accepted her voluntary resignation and plaintiff withdrew her grievance with the union.

 Plaintiff did not withdraw her claims before the EEOC and the State and may have conveyed to the State her intention not to do so. Defendant did not pay plaintiff the agreed upon $ 2750 in settlement of her claims, but rather, gave the State a check made payable to plaintiff to be turned over to her upon the withdrawal of her claims. Plaintiff never withdrew the charges pending before the EEOC and the State, and thus never received payment from defendant.

 Pursuant to an investigation, the State found that plaintiff had "no probable cause and thus was not permitted to bring a State action based upon her charges. The EEOC, however, issued a "right to sue" letter, upon which this action is based.

 Proceeding pro se, plaintiff filed a summons and complaint in this action on August 6, 1992. The complaint alleges discriminatory termination of employment, retaliation, sexual harassment and unequal terms and conditions of employment based upon sex discrimination, all in violation of Title VII.

 DISCUSSION

 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

 Before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, or in the ...


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.