Hoy
Hoy v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Opinion
Opinion
Armstrong, J.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant Sears, Roebuck & Company, brings the above-captioned matter on the ground that the defendant and its managers breached plaintiffs employment contract when defen dants terminated his employment. Defendants now move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. After reviewing the papers submitted by both parties, and being fully informed, the Court finds that defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was employed by defendants in a variety of positions for approximately 26 years. From 1969 to 1987, plaintiff was a Division Manager. In 1987, plaintiffs position as a Home Improvement Sales Manager was to be centralized and combined with another department. Plaintiff requested reassignment to a commission salesperson in the department that sold major appliances. The request was granted.
In August of 1991 plaintiff was fired. The reason given for his termination was his failure to maintain a sufficient ratio of Maintenance Agreements (“M/A”) to Merchandise Sales.