Answer

Okay, here is the answer: "Yes, the court's ruling was appropriate. Under FRCP 56 Summary Judgement must be granted when there is not genuine issue of material fact in dispute. The court will view teh facts presented in the pleadings, motions, etc. in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Smith), and in opposing the Motion, Smith may not rely on allegations or general denials in its own pleadings -- his response must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Because Smith's deposition gives no facts or proof regarding why he believes he was terminated over the high pay issue and otherwise offers only vague denials and otherwise non-specific information, his claim for wrongful termination based upon the high pay issue must fail." <<< END OF ANSWER >>> Now, I just want to alert you generally that Rockwell could have also brought a lack of jurisdiction claim to have the case kicked over to state court. Smith's claim of "discrimination" based upon his high salary should not have been brought in federal court -- the only employment discrimination claims that can be brought in federal court are those where the plaintiff is alleging that he/she was terminated due to race, age, handicap, national origin, color, religion, genetics or sex (gender). However, by using the Summary Judgment Motion, the case gets kicked out of court entirely (I add this last bit in in the event that your teacher/professor asks about the federal discrimination laws and protected classes (Smith is NOT a protected class, according to these facts -- he is simply suing over the high pay issue). I Hope that helps! GOOD LUCK.