Roberts v. Conoco, Inc., Civ. A. No. 88-B-1352.

• Citation: 717 F. Supp. 724
• Decision Date: 14 August 1989
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 88-B-1352.
• Parties: Michael C. ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. CONOCO, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

717 F. Supp. 724

Michael C. ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. CONOCO, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 88-B-1352.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

August 14, 1989.

Richard E. Samson, Hopp, Carlson & Beckman, P.C., Longmont, Colo., for plaintiff.

Todd L. Lundy, Denver, Colo., and Lisa E. Chismire, Conoco, Inc., Houston, Tex., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BABCOCK, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant Conoco, Inc.'s (Conoco) motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, Michael C. Roberts (Roberts), commenced this action in the state district court alleging violation of Section 8-2-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B), which makes one liable for inducing a workman to move into Colorado by means of false or deceptive representations concerning the kind and character of the work. After Conoco removed the action to this Court Roberts was granted leave to file an amended complaint to include a claim for negligent misrepresentation. Conoco now moves for summary judgment on both claims for relief. The Court grants Conoco's motion.

These material facts are undisputed:

Conoco hired Roberts as a full-time petroleum transport driver in Great Falls, Montana on March 1, 1984 at a salary of $20,000.00 per year. In June 1985, Doug Franssen (Franssen), Conoco's operations manager, went to Great Falls and offered Roberts a job as assistant terminal manager to Joseph Meuren (Meuren) and as marketing representative at the Denver terminal in Commerce City, Colorado at an annual salary of $32,500.00. Franssen also told Roberts that he would receive assistance with the move to Colorado, including payment of living expenses during relocation, cash for incidental home needs, and help with the sale of his home in Montana. As assistant terminal manager, Franssen told Roberts that his responsibilities would include supervising and disciplining personnel, working on special projects, handling crisis and emergency situations, and working in sales, marketing, and public relations.

Job security was important to Roberts and his family. Thus, Roberts had the following discussion with Franssen:

So my Roberts' question to Franssen was "What can I look for for a future?" And he Franssen said, "Well normally when we bring an individual into a position like this, he usually stays in that kind of position for anywhere between three to four years before he can expect to be hired to another position. In other words, upward mobility." He Franssen said it usually took three to four years. So I Roberts said I could expect to be in Denver for three to four years before I would receive any kind of significant promotion, and he said yes. (Emphasis added).

Roberts interpreted this conversation to mean that he was "assured" of being assistant terminal manager for three to four years. He understood that he was to have permanent employment and that satisfactory performance was a condition to any future with Conoco.

Plaintiff sold his house in Montana and relocated his family to Colorado. As promised, Conoco: 1) bought Roberts' house in Montana to aid his move to Colorado; 2) granted Roberts a home transfer loan; 3) reimbursed Roberts for various moving expenses, including temporary food and living expenses; and 4) gave Roberts cash disbursements for incidental expenses.

Roberts began working at the Commerce City terminal in August 1985. Although he agreed to undertake new duties and responsibilities as assistant manager he was neither promised nor given formal orientation or training. Nevertheless, Roberts became the assistant terminal manager at the Commerce City terminal under Meuren's supervision. He was paid an annual salary of $32,500.00. He was assigned to special projects and emergency situations. Roberts called on customers to promote asphalt and industrial sales. He supervised and disciplined the transport drivers, attended safety meetings and helped maintain truck safety. He performed administrative paperwork, coordinated schedules, and organized the dispatching.

There was friction on the job between Roberts and the drivers. Meuren gave Roberts a negative performance review in January 1986 and management decided to place Roberts on probation for three months. Roberts contends that during this probationary period Conoco provided inadequate training and support necessary to carry out his duties as assistant manager.

Roberts was terminated from his employment on May 12, 1986.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 provides that summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate when the Court can conclude that no reasonable juror could find for the non-moving party on the basis of the evidence presented in the motion and response. Matsushita, supra. Where, as here, a party moves for summary judgment on an issue on which that party would not bear the burden of persuasion at trial, that party's initial burden may be satisfied by showing an absence of evidence in the record to support the non-moving party's case. Celotex, supra. Once the moving party has met this initial burden of production, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita, supra.; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The non-moving party must present evidence sufficient so that a reasonable juror could rule in the non-moving party's favor. Matsushita, supra.

I.

Section 8-2-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B). provides in pertinent part:

8-2-104. Obtaining workmen by misrepresentation unlawful. It is unlawful for any person, company, corporation, ... of any kind doing business in this state, ... to induce, influence, persuade, or engage workmen to change from one place of employment to another in this state, or to

...