The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ricardo M. Urbina United States District Judge
Re Document Nos.: 12, 13, 14, 22
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DENYING AS MOOT THE PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM"
This matter comes before the court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff has also filed a motion for sanctions and a "motion for subpoena duces tecum." Because the plaintiff's claims are foreclosed pursuant to a settlement agreement, which expressly released the defendants from further legal action arising out of the plaintiff's employment, the court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denies the plaintiff's discovery motion as moot. In addition, because the defendants have not committed a sanctionable offense, the court denies the plaintiff's motion for sanctions.
The plaintiff was employed by defendant the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations ("AFL-CIO") as a cook/server from December 16, 2002 to March 31, 2005. Defs.' Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute ("Defs.' Statement") ¶ 1;*fn1 see generally Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J.; Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement Parts I & II. Defendant Mark Zobrisky supervised the plaintiff during his tenure at the AFL-CIO. Defs.' Statement ¶ 3; Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement Part I at 8. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was terminated from his position on March 31, 2005, for allegedly failing to comply with the AFL-CIO's absence reporting requirements. Defs.' Statement ¶ 12. The plaintiff maintains that he complied with all relevant absence reporting guidelines. See generally Compl.; Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J.; Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement Parts I & II. The plaintiff's employment was covered by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the AFL-CIO and Local 25.*fn2 Defs.' Statement ¶ 4. The CBA provided for a grievance procedure culminating in final and binding arbitration as the exclusive method for resolving grievances between the AFL-CIO and members of Local 25. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., Attach. ("Garland Decl."), Ex. 1.
Following his termination, the plaintiff filed a grievance under the CBA, which eventually resulted in an arbitration proceeding. Defs.' Statement ¶ 13; see generally Pl.'s Compl.; Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. During the arbitration the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, which was drafted by Local 25 and executed by the plaintiff, Local 25 and the AFLCIO. Defs.' Statement ¶ 14; Garland Decl., Ex. 5 ("Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement called for the plaintiff to receive a lump sum of $10,365 in return for his releasing the AFL-CIO "from all claims of any nature -- including but not limited to such for loss of wages, gratuities or fringe benefits -- that relate to or arise out of his employment with or separation from the [AFL-CIO]." Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 1, 3. The Settlement Agreement further stated that it "expresses the full and complete settlement of all claims which were or could have been brought pursuant to any statutory or common law with regard to the [plaintiff's] separation from employment with the [AFL-CIO] or that could have been brought under the [CBA]." Id. ¶ 4.
The plaintiff filed his complaint with the assistance of counsel on March 1, 2006, claiming that the defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., breached their employment contract with the plaintiff and Local 25, negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the plaintiff and wrongfully terminated him. See generally Compl. ¶¶ 36-60. On October 27, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's counsel leave to withdraw. Minute Order (Oct. 27, 2006). The defendants' filed a motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2008. See generally Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. On December 9, 2008, the plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, see generally Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., and on December 10 he filed a motion for sanctions, see generally Pl.'s Mot. for Sanctions. On February 4, 2009, the plaintiff filed a "motion for a subpoena duces tecum," see generally Pl.'s Mot. for Subpoena Duces Tecum ("Pl.'s Mot. for Subpoena").
A. The Court Grants Summary Judgment to the Defendants
1. Legal Standard for a Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). To determine which facts are "material," a court must look to the substantive law on which each claim rests. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A "genuine issue" is one whose ...