United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.
In this case, pro se Plaintiff Kim Dale alleges that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment at Hawker Beechcraft Corporation ("HBC"). Before the Court is Defendant Beechcraft Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 8) and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 13). Defendant contends that Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed because it arose prior to HBC's bankruptcy petition and was discharged in HBC's bankruptcy proceedings. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Local Rules for Summary Judgment
The required rules for summary judgment motions in the District of Kansas are set forth in D. Kan. Rule 56.1. Under that rule, "[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement of the movant will be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party." D. Kan. Rule. 56.1(b) addresses a party's responsibility in opposing a motion for summary judgment.
(1) A memorandum in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must begin with a section containing a concise statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Each fact in dispute must be numbered by paragraph, refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the opposing party relies, and, if applicable, state the number of movant's fact that is disputed.
(2) If the party opposing summary judgment relies on any facts not contained in movant's memorandum, that party must set forth each additional fact in a separately numbered paragraph, supported by references to the record, in the manner required by subsection (a), above. All material facts set forth in this statement of the non-moving party will be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the reply of the moving party.
Plaintiff is pro se, and the Court must afford her some leniency in her filings. A pro se litigant, however, is still expected to "follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." In this case, Plaintiff failed to controvert any of Defendant's facts. She also failed to appropriately set forth her additional facts or provide any support for her factual assertions. Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is pro se and attempts to construe Plaintiff's briefing generously in her favor.
A. Plaintiff's Employment at HBC
Plaintiff was previously employed at Hawker Beechcraft Corporation. HBC terminated Plaintiff's employment on October 14, 2011, for violation of HBC's Rule of Conduct 49 - Insubordination or refusal to obey orders of Foreman or other supervision. Shortly after her termination, on November 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Kansas Human Rights Commission ("KHRC") and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that she had been subjected to disparate treatment and then terminated due to her race, gender, and age.
B. HBC's Bankruptcy
On May 3, 2012, HBC and related entities filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ("Bankruptcy Court"). On July 30, 2012, HBC's bankruptcy noticing agent mailed, via first class mail, notice of the bankruptcy proceedings to Plaintiff, sending her a copy of (1) HBC's Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Plan"), (2) the Disclosure Statement for Debtors' Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Disclosure Statement"), (3) the Notice of Deadline Requiring Proofs of Claim on or Before September 14, 2012, and Related Procedures for Filing Proofs of Claim in the Above-Captioned Chapter 11 Cases (the "Bar Date Notice"), and (4) the Proof of Claim form. Plaintiff responded by filing two proofs of claim. Plaintiff's first proof of claim relates to an employment discrimination claim that Plaintiff previously filed against Defendant in this District. Plaintiff's second proof of claim is based on a workers compensation claim and is for an unspecified amount.
HBC filed an amended Plan October 29, 2012. The amended Plan provides, at Article III, Section B. 10, that claims such as that held by Plaintiff are general unsecured claims. It also classifies Plaintiff's claim as the ...