Anderson v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, Inc.
ORDER denying 30 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 9/4/08. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION ANDREA ANDERSON VS. CASE NO. 3:07CV00110 JMM DEFENDANT ORDE R Pending before the Court is plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion to Reconsider and defendant's response. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied (#30).
Plaintiff brought claims of sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 ("ACRA"), and a pendent state claim for the tort of outrage against defendant based upon her termination by defendant's district manager Drew
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF ARKANSAS, INC.
White. On August 11, the Court granted defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed plaintiff's claims. In dismissing her complaint, plaintiff contends that the Court failed to address her claim that she was terminated for failure to engage in an illegal act which she argues is a tort claim under Arkansas law. The Court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint and finds that she made no such claim. Moreover, if the claim were properly before the Court, plaintiff's testimony that she reported shortages in the cash register and discrepancies in accounting procedures to Drew White is insufficient evidence to establish that (1) defendant ever asked or instructed plaintiff to commit an illegal act; (2) defendant terminated plaintiff's employment because she refused to commit an illegal act; or (3) any illegal acts actually occurred. Finally, the Court notes that it was only after
she was terminated that plaintiff made contact with defendant's loss prevention office. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 4 day of September , 2008.
James M. Moody United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?