Walker v. Arkansas Department of Community Correction

Filing 45

ORDER denying as moot 25 Motion to Dismiss filed by Arkansas Department of Community Correction. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/2/2010. (jct)

Walker v. Arkansas Department of Community Correction

Doc. 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION DIANNA C. WALKER v. CASE NO. 3:08cv00131 BSM PLAINTIFF

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION and DAVID EBERHARD, In His Official Capacity as Director, Arkansas Department of Community Correction ORDER

DEFENDANTS

Separate defendant, Arkansas Department of Community Correction ("ADCC"), requests the dismissal of plaintiff Dianna C. Walker's Title VII retaliation claim. [Doc. No. 25]. Walker has responded [Doc. No. 31], and the motion is denied as moot. ADCC asserts that Walker has failed to allege any facts that she was engaged in protected conduct, an essential element of a Title VII retaliation claim. Protected conduct is the opposition to employment practices that a reasonable person could believe violate Title VII. Helton v. Southland Racing Corp., 600 F.3d 954, 960 (8th Cir. 2010). In the original complaint Walker stated that she took part in writing a letter to Governor Mike Beebe ("Beebe") and the Internal Affairs Administrator for ADCC, Dicky Johnson ("Johnson"), requesting an investigation. She did not, however, describe the specific contents of the letter. In her response, Walker maintained that the original complaint was filed prior to obtaining counsel, and indicated that a motion to amend the complaint would be forthcoming. Walker then filed a motion to amend. The motion was granted, and in the amended

Dockets.Justia.com

complaint Walker more clearly describes the allegations contained in the letter sent to Beebe and Johnson. According to the complaint the letter described the actions taken by ADCC employees with regard to Walker, and alleged favortism, racism and inequality (sex discrimination). The amended complaint sufficiently states a Title VII retaliation claim. ADCC's partial motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 25] is therefore denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2010.

________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2