Cellini

Cellini v. Harcourt Brace & Co.

Good Law
51 F. Supp. 2d 1028·1999 WL 401673·83 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 483·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9264
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 27, 199998-1424-IEG LABCalifornia7,063 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gonzalez, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff John Cellini, a former employee of defendant Hareourt Brace & Company (“Hareourt Brace”), brings this action against Hareourt Brace and Hareourt General (“Hareourt General”), the parent eor: poration of Hareourt Brace, based on allegations surrounding his resignation from the position of telemarketing coordinator for Hareourt Brace’s professional publishing division.

Plaintiff began his employment with Hareourt Brace on January 16, 1996. Pri- or to commencing his employment with Hareourt Brace, plaintiff signed an employment application, entitled “Hareourt Brace & Company Or A Subsidiary Application for Employment,” which stated that plaintiffs employment could be terminated by Hareourt Brace “with or without cause” and “with or without notice at any time.” (Dow Deck, Ex. 10.) • During his employment with Hareourt Brace, plaintiff received copies of a bonus plan on three separate occasions which stated that plaintiff was an “at will” employee of Hareourt Brace.

On December 3, 1996, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging sexual harassment by a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.