ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kathleen Chytka, Denver, CO, pro se. Brett C. Painter, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BLACKBURN, District Judge.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 81] filed May 29, 2012; (2) the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 115] filed August 16, 2012; and (3) the
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
[# 146] filed November 13, 2012. The plaintiff filed five separate documents [# 156, # 157, # 158, # 160, & # 161], which, with a modicum of judicial munificence, can be read as objections to the recommendation. The defendant filed a response [# 175] to the plaintiff's objections. I overrule the plaintiff's objections, approve and adopt the recommendation, deny the plaintiff's motion, deny the defendant's motion in part, and grant the defendant's motion in part.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered carefully the recommendation, the objections, and the applicable case law.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed her pleadings and other filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir.2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991).
The plaintiff, Kathleen Chytka, is a former employee of the defendant, Wright Tree Service, Inc. In 2011, Wright Tree terminated Ms. Chytka's employment. In her complaint [# 13], Ms. Chytka asserts claims under Title VII for hostile work environment, gender discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliation. In addition, Ms. Chytka asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Finally, Ms. Chytka asserts state law claims for unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel.
In the recommendation [# 146], the magistrate judge analyzed thoroughly each of the claims and the parties' arguments in support of their cross-motions for summary judgment. I agree with the analysis and conclusions of the magistrate judge. Having reviewed the plaintiff's objections [# 156, # 157, # 158, # 160, & # 161] to the recommendation, I conclude that the plaintiff has not stated any valid objection to the recommendation.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That any objections stated by the plaintiff in documents [# 156, # 157, # 158, # 160, & # 161] are OVERRULED;
2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [# 146] filed November 13, 2012, is APPROVED and
ADOPTED
as an order of this court;
3. That the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 81] filed May 29, 2012, is
DENIED;
4. That the plaintiff's retaliation claim, her Eighth Claim for Relief, is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
5. That the portions of the plaintiff's age and gender discrimination claims concerning the alleged failure to promote the plaintiff to Operations Manager, part of the plaintiff's Third and Fourth Claims for Relief, are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
6. That the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 115] filed August 16, 2012, is
DENIED
as to the plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination to the extent that claim is based on the defendant's alleged failure to train the plaintiff, part of the plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief;
7. That the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 115] filed August 16, 2012, is
GRANTED
as to each of the plaintiff's other claims for relief;
8. That, thus, the one claim still pending in this case is the plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination to the extent that claim is based on the defendant's alleged failure to train the plaintiff, part of the plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KRISTEN L. MIX, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 81; Filed May 29, 2012] (“Plaintiff's Motion)” and on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 115; Filed August 16, 2012] (“Defendant's Motion”). Plaintiff proceeds in this matter as a pro se litigant. On August 17, 2012, Defendant filed a Response [# 117] to Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff did not file a Reply. On August 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Response [# 118] to Defendant's Motion. On September 24, 2012, Defendant filed a Reply [# 128]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1C.3., the Motion has been referred to this Court for a recommendation regarding disposition. The Court has reviewed the pleadings, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion [# 81] be DENIED and that Defendant's Motion [# 115] be
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. Summary of the Case
In the Amended Complaint [# 13], Plaintiff asserts ten claims against Defendant, her former employer: (1) hostile work environment; (2) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.; (3) age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621– 634; (4) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; (5) disparate treatment in violation of Title VII; (6) violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d); (7) violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq.; (8) retaliation in violation of Title VII; (9) promissory estoppel; and (10) unjust enrichment.