Scribd
Upload
1K views3 pages

Reidinger Ruling

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina is considering Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Marlene Wilkerson's lawsuit against Henderson County. A magistrate judge issued a recommendation that one of Plaintiff's claims for a hostile work environment should proceed but that her claims for discrimination in compensation and constructive discharge should be dismissed. Both Plaintiff and Defendant objected to parts of the recommendation. The district court judge overruled the objections, accepted the magistrate's recommendation, granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the claims for compensation discrimination and constructive discharge with prejudice.

Uploaded by

Mitchell Black
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views3 pages

Reidinger Ruling

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina is considering Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Marlene Wilkerson's lawsuit against Henderson County. A magistrate judge issued a recommendation that one of Plaintiff's claims for a hostile work environment should proceed but that her claims for discrimination in compensation and constructive discharge should be dismissed. Both Plaintiff and Defendant objected to parts of the recommendation. The district court judge overruled the objections, accepted the magistrate's recommendation, granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the claims for compensation discrimination and constructive discharge with prejudice.

Uploaded by

Mitchell Black
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA


ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00050-MR-WCM

MARLENE WILKERSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
HENDERSON COUNTY, )
)
Defendant. )
)

THIS MATTER is before this Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

[Doc. 7]; the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc.

12] regarding the disposition of that motion; and the parties’ Objections to

the Memorandum and Recommendation [Docs. 13, 14].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation

of this Court, the Honorable W. Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate

Judge, was designated to consider Defendant’s motion and to submit a

recommendation for its disposition. On October 6, 2023, the Magistrate

Judge filed a Memorandum and Recommendation in this case containing

conclusions of law in support of a recommendation regarding the motion to

dismiss. [Doc. 12]. The parties were advised that any objections to the

Case 1:23-cv-00050-MR-WCM Document 16 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 3


Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in

writing within fourteen (14) days of service. Both Plaintiff and Defendant

timely filed Objections on October 20, 2023. [Docs. 13, 14].

After careful consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation

and the Objections thereto, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s

proposed conclusions of law are correct and consistent with current case

law. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this

Court dismiss her claims for discrimination based on compensation and for

constructive discharge, and Defendant objects to his recommendation that

Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim should go forward. [See Docs. 13

at 3-5; 14 at 11-14]. As the Magistrate Judge explains, Plaintiff’s Complaint

includes enough factual allegations, when taken in the light most favorable

to her, to allow her hostile work environment claim to proceed. [See Doc. 12

at 11]. However, her Complaint lacks sufficient factual detail to support her

claims for discrimination based on compensation and for constructive

discharge. [See id. at 12, 14-15]. Accordingly, this Court hereby overrules

the Objections and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that

the motion to dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Objections to the

Memorandum and Recommendation [Docs. 13, 14] are OVERRULED; the

Case 1:23-cv-00050-MR-WCM Document 16 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 3


Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 12] is ACCEPTED; Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

and Plaintiff’s claims for discrimination based on compensation and for

constructive discharge are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 6, 2023

Case 1:23-cv-00050-MR-WCM Document 16 Filed 11/06/23 Page 3 of 3

You might also like