Case 2:16-cv-02558-CM-TJJ Document 14 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 3 2 conditions of employment (as alleged in Count I, ¶¶47, 49-51, and 53); and hostile work environment (as alleged in Count II). In addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted under either 40 U.S.C. § 3702 (Count III) or the Kansas Wage Payment Act, K.S.A. 44-313 et seq. (Count VII), and any such claims should also be dismissed.2 The reasons for dismissal are more fully set forth in the memorandum in support of RPS’s motion (Doc. 10), which Northwestern Mutual adopts for purposes of this motion.

RPS therefore requests that the Court dismiss (1) part of Count I (in particular, claims based on ¶ 47 regarding compensation, ¶¶ 49-51 regarding failure to accommodate, and ¶ 53 regarding other terms and conditions), and (2) all of Count II (hostile work environment) of her Complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted under either 40 U.S.C. § 3702 (Count III) or the Kansas Wage Payment Act, K.S.A. 44-313 et seq. (Count VII), and any such claims should therefore be dismissed. The reasons in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss are more fully set out in its in Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Part of Plaintiff’s ADA Claims (Counts I and Case 2:16-cv-02558-CM-TJJ Document 9 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 3 2 II) and All of Plaintiff’s Wage Payment Claims (Counts III and VII), which is filed contemporaneously herewith.

05CV2125, 2012 WL 3672561 (S.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 33, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48 Seidl v. Greentree Mortg. Co., 30 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (D. Colo. 1998) ......................................... 33 Spaulding v. United Transp. Union, 279 F.3d 901 (10th Cir. 2002) ............................................ 30 State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Brown, 32 Cal. App. 4th 188, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 98 (1995) ............. 38, 42 Case 2:09-cv-02443-EFM-KGG Document 65 Filed 04/01/13 Page 3 of 58 758462v1 iii Statutes 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) ........................................................................................................................ 31 29 U.S.C.A. § 203(e)(1)................................................................................................................ 31 49 C.F.R. §§ 390.1 ........................................................................................................ 3, 16, 39, 42 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-313(b).......................................................................................................... 31 Rules FED. R. CIV. P. 1............................................................................................................................ 29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ..................................................................................................................... 29 Case 2:09-cv-02443-EFM-KGG Document 65 Filed 04/01/13 Page 4 of 58 758462v1 1 I. INTRODUCTION

(See Ex. A.) Plaintiff-Intervenors allege that Sprint failed to provide retail employees with a commission system that accurately tracked, calculated, and awarded them their commissions due under their commission agreements, which resulted in both a breach of contract and a violation of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, K.S.A. § 44-313 et seq.3 (See id.; Fisher Aff. at ¶ 2.)