Harberson v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
Decision Date | 17 September 1985 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 83-C-2468. |
Citation | 616 F. Supp. 864 |
Parties | Thomas R. HARBERSON, Plaintiff, v. HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Ajai Khandke, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.
James C. Ruh, Denver, Colo., for defendant.
Plaintiff Thomas R. Harberson was discharged from his job as an electrician with the defendant Hilton Hotel Corporation (Hilton). He brought this action alleging age discrimination, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (1982), outrageous conduct, and slander. Harberson has voluntarily dismissed his slander claim. Hilton has moved to dismiss the three remaining claims and Harberson has responded. The parties have briefed the issues thoroughly, and oral argument would not assist in resolving them. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 (1982).
On July 1, 1982, the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) commenced an economic strike against Hilton. Although Harberson was not a member of that union, he honored the picket line. Hilton settled its labor dispute with the IUOE on July 12, 1982. Part of the settlement agreement provided that Hilton would not discipline its non-IUOE employees for their refusal to cross the picket line.
A letter dated July 15, 1982, informed Harberson that he had been permanently replaced. Harberson's union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The regional administrative law judge held in favor of Harberson, but the NLRB's General Counsel reversed that decision. Harberson's appeal is currently pending. Harberson has alleged that in the course of the NLRB proceedings Hilton employees forged records and committed perjury.
Harberson's first claim alleges that Hilton discriminated against him because of his age. Hilton contends that Harberson's failure to timely file a charge with the EEOC precludes him from asserting this claim here. Hilton's argument requires consideration of facts not in the complaint and will therefore be treated as a motion for summary judgment.
As noted, Hilton informed Harberson of his discharge on July 15, 1982. Under 29 U.S.C. § 626(d) (1982), Harberson had 180 days after occurrence of the alleged unlawful practice to file a charge with the EEOC. He did not, however, file his EEOC age discrimination charge until February 10, 1983, more than 180 days after his discharge. See Defendant's Ex. A. Since timely EEOC filing is a prerequisite to jurisdiction, Harberson's age discrimination claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
All the courts that have considered the issue have held that § 1503 does not create a private claim for relief. Odell v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 201 F.2d 123, 127 (10th Cir.1953); Burch v. Snider, 461 F.Supp. 598 (D.Md.1978); Mainelli v. Providence Journal Co., 207 F.Supp. 453 (1962). Accordingly, Harberson's claim based on § 1503 must be dismissed.
Hilton asserts that Harberson's outrageous conduct claim should be dismissed because it fails to allege...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weise v. Washington Tru Solutions, LLC
...and making repeated phone calls to [the employee's] treating physician." Id. at 962. Similarly, the court in Harberson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 616 F.Supp. 864 (D.Colo.1985), held that allegations of perjury and forgery by an employer were enough to constitute outrageous conduct. Id. at 866.......
-
Scherer v. U.S.
...941, 73 S.Ct. 833, 97 L.Ed. 1367 (1953); Boisjoly v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., 706 F.Supp. 795, 807 (D.Utah 1988); Harberson v. Hilton Hotels, 616 F.Supp. 864, 866 (D.Colo.1985); Burch v. Snider, 461 F.Supp. 598, 602 (D.Md.1978); Mainelli v. Providence Journal Co., 207 F.Supp. 453, 456 (D.R.I.)......
-
Roettgen v. Jardins
..."concerned with obstruction of judicial proceedings" and "do[] not create a civil cause of action.") (citing Harberson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 616 F. Supp. 864 (D. Colo. 1985)). D. Writ of Mandamus Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks mandamus relief in the form of an order compelling Defe......
-
Cichocki v. Mass. Bay Cmty. Coll.
...person. Moreover, a private civil right of action under this particular statute has not been recognized. Harberson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 616 F. Supp. 864, 866 (D.C. Colo. 1985) ("All the courts that have considered the issue have held that § 1503 does not create a private claim for relief......
-
A Survey of Outrageous Conduct Under Colorado Law: Part Ii
...469. "[T]he tort of outrageous conduct protected him from malicious or unconscionable treatment." Id. Harberson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 616 F.Supp. 864 1985) (Carrigan, J.): A union "commenced an economic strike against [the defendant employer]." Id. at 865. "Although [plaintiff] was not a ......