Emerick v. United Technologies Corp., 96-7295
| Decision Date | 22 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-7295,96-7295 |
| Citation | 104 F.3d 353 |
| Parties | NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23. Roger EMERICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Present: LUMBARD, McLAUGHLIN, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and was argued.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
In June 1980, United Technologies Corp. ("UTC"), a defense manufacturer, hired Roger Emerick ("Emerick") as an engineer. During the summer of 1993, Emerick participated in two company programs known as "Straight Talk" and "DIALOG." These programs were created at the encouragement of the federal government to provide alternative dispute resolution, facilitate honesty in defense spending, and promote corporate self-criticism.
Through these programs, Emerick criticized UTC's management. Emerick claims that UTC denied him a promotion and terminated his employment in retaliation for his views.
Emerick sued in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Nevas, J.) alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. UTC moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion. Emerick then moved to amend his complaint to state a stand-alone First Amendment claim. The district court denied the motion because such an amendment would be futile.
Emerick now appeals, arguing that (1) the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint; and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it denied him leave to file an amended complaint.
We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo and will affirm only "if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Citibank v. K-H Corp., 968 F.2d 1489, 1494 (2d Cir.1992).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a civil cause of action against a person, acting under color of state law, who deprives one of a right, privilege or immunity guaranteed by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. A party who claims that Constitutional rights have been violated must first establish that the challenged conduct amounts to state action. United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 941 F.2d 1292, 1295 (2d Cir.1991). If there is no state action, the inquiry ends. See id. at 1297.
A state may be held responsible for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.
...Limited Partnership I v. West Hartford Board of Tax Review, 232 Conn. 392, 395-96, 655 A.2d 759 (1995); see also Emerick v. United Technologies Corp., 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir.1996). In this case, both grounds for the defendant's motion to strike must be Statutory analysis is a search for the i......