Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Corley v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division

December 20, 2018

WILLIAM ROBERT CORLEY PLAINTIFF
v.
CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC And JOHN DOES 1-5 DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          MICHAEL P. MILLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [16]. The Court, having reviewed the motion, the parties' submissions, the complaint, and applicable authority, is now prepared to rule.

         Factual Background

         Plaintiff, William Robert Corley, was employed by FNC, Inc. on March 4, 2013 in Oxford, Mississippi. In late 2014, Plaintiff informed his supervisors and the Human Resources Department that he desired to move to Colorado and wished to work remotely. By the end of 2015, Plaintiff's supervisors and other corporate officials were aware of Plaintiff's desire to move to Colorado.

         In 2016, CoreLogic, Inc., Defendant, acquired FNC, Inc.. By April 2016, Plaintiff was now employed by CoreLogic Solutions, LLC as a technical business analyst. A few months later in June 2016, Director of Research and Development, Raju Alluri, discussed with Plaintiff about working as an engineer in the Research and Development department. Plaintiff then informed Mr. Alluri and Mr. Marsalis, his superiors, about his desire to work remotely from Colorado. His superiors agreed that he could work remotely.

         In July 2016, Plaintiff began his work in the Research and Development department while at the same time continuing his work as a technical business analyst. That same summer, Plaintiff began making plans for his move to Colorado: he made improvements to his home in Oxford; searched for a property in Colorado; listed his Oxford home; and sold his Oxford home.

         On October 28, 2016, Director Raju Alluri provided Plaintiff with a letter stating that he would be permitted to work remotely from Colorado. Shortly thereafter Plaintiff closed on his home in Colorado and moved in November 2016.

         On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff received a letter from Maria Nalywayko, Senior Vice President for the Human Resources & Strategic Project Administration, informing him that he could no longer work remotely as the company was implementing a new standard requiring that all work be office-based. The letter required Plaintiff to either “choose to commute to the nearest CoreLogic office no later than March 31, 2017” or “choose to take a separation package rather than commuting to a CoreLogic location” no later than February 3, 2017. Plaintiff chose the separation package and returned the acknowledgement form on February 3, 2017.

         Plaintiff's separation date was March 31, 2017, and Plaintiff did not sign a separation agreement with Defendant.

         In his complaint, filed February 20, 2018, Plaintiff states that CoreLogic did not apply the new policy consistently among its employees and granted some employees extensions or exemptions. Plaintiff argues that the new policy was implemented to target and terminate him in order to: remove a highly-compensated employee from payroll; remove an employee who was due for a promotion; and remove an employee who posed a perceived threat and competition to his supervisors. Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

         Defendant, on July 21, 2018, filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings.

         Standard

         Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). In considering Rule 12(c) motions the court relies on the same standard as that of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Great Plains Tr. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002). In a motion for a judgment on the pleadings “[t]he central issue is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief.” Hughes c. Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2001). Such a motion “is appropriate only if there are no disputed issues of fact and only questions of law remain.” Id. (citing Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China, 142 F.3d 887, 891 (5th Cir. 1998)). Moreover, in ruling on a motion for a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.