Allen v. Vetbuilt Services, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 41 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Vetbuilt Services, Inc. Signed by District Judge Marianne O. Battani. (KDoa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDRE ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:15-cv-12340
v.
HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI
VETBUILT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Andre Allen filed this employment civil rights action against Defendant
Vetbuilt Services, Inc. on June 30, 2015. On October 30, 2015, the Court referred this
action to Magistrate judge Mona K. Majzoub for all pretrial proceedings, including a
report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
626(b)(1)(B).
In December 2015, Defendant Vetbuilt Services, Inc. filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. On August 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted with regard to Plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and Michigan’s ElliottLarsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), Mich. Comp. Laws §37.2101, et seq. and denied as
to Platiniff’s sexual harassment claims under Title VII and ELCRA. (Doc. No. 47). For
the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 41) and
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff, Andre Allen, filed suit against his former employer, alleging claims of
sexual harassment and retaliation pursuant to Title VII and ELCRA. The parties have
not objected to the R&R’s summary of the facts. Therefore, the Court adopts that
portion of the R&R. (See Doc. 47, pp. 2-6).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district judge “shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674
(1980); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3) (stating that a “district judge must determine de novo
any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions”); E.D. Mich. LR
72.1(d)(2). In conducting a de novo review, the Court should look to the relevant
pleadings and evidence put forth in motions; a failure to file objections, or a failure to file
specific objections, constitutes waiver. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985);
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
III. ANALYSIS
After reviewing all of the relevant filings, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
Plaintiff’s sexual harassment/hostile work environment claims proceed. According to
the Magistrate Judge, not only did Allen find his work environment to be “severely
hostile,” a “reasonable jury could perceive his work environment as hostile.” (Doc. No.

2

47, pp. 10-11). In sum, the evidence in the record, although contested, showed the
existence of a question of fact as to whether Defendant knew about or should have
known about the sexual harassment, and whether a hostile work environment existed.
As for the retaliation claims, however, the Magistrate Judge found that Allen had
failed to create a prima facie case because the evidence did not support a finding that
he had engaged in protected activity or a causal connection between the activity and
the adverse employment action. (Doc. No. 47, pp. 14-15).
The Magistrate Judge informed the parties that they had fourteen days from
service to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and that a party’s failure
to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Doc. No. 47, p. 16). Because
no objection has been filed in this case, the parties have waived their right to review and
appeal. Moreover, the Court finds the analysis thoroughly recounted the facts and
properly applied the governing law in reaching the recommendations set forth in the
R&R.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS in part
and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 28, 2017

s/Marianne O. Battani
MARIANNE O. BATTANI
United States District Judge

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to
their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on September 28, 2017.
s/ Kay Doaks
Case Manager

4