Bogan v. MTD Consumer Group, Inc.

Filing 78

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 1/17/2017. (adm)

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
SHEANETER J. BOGAN

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:14cv225-SA-DAS

MTD CONSUMER GROUP, INC.

DEFENDANT

PRETRIAL ORDER
1.

Choose [by a ✔ mark] one of the following paragraphs, as is appropriate to the action:

If a pretrial conference was held
A pretrial conference was held as follows:

Date: November 2, 2016

Time: 10:30 am

United States Courthouse at:

Aberdeen, Mississippi

Before the following judicial officer:

Magistrate Judge David Sanders

The final pretrial conference having been dispensed with by the judicial officer,
the parties have conferred and agree upon the following terms of this pretrial
order:
2.

The following counsel appeared:

a.

For the Plaintiff:
Name
Ron L. Woodruff

b.

Postal and Email
Addresses
Waide & Associates, P.A.
332N. Spring Street
P. O. Box 1357
Tupelo, MS 38802
[e-mail]

Telephone No.
(662)-842-7324

For the Defendant:
Name
Robin B. Taylor
Timothy W. Lindsay

Postal and Email
Addresses
207 West Jackson Street
Suite 200

Telephone No.
601-360-8444

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

Blythe Lollar

3.

4.

The pleadings are amended to conform to this pretrial order.

The following claims (including claims stated in the complaint, counterclaims,
crossclaims, third-party claims, etc.) have been filed:
a.
b.
c.

5.

Ridgeland, MS 39157
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Plaintiff’s claim under Title VII for race discrimination; and
Plaintiff’s claim under Title VII for gender discrimination.
Plaintiff’s claim under Title VII for gender and race discrimination.

The basis for this court’s jurisdiction is:
This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, 28 U.S.C. § 1331
and civil rights jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, for a cause of action arising under
Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

6.

The following jurisdictional question(s) remain(s) [If none, enter “None”]: None

7.

The following motions remain pending [If none, enter “None”] [Note: Pending motions
not noted here may be deemed moot]:

8.

The parties accept the following concise summaries of the ultimate facts as claimed by:

a.

Plaintiff:

On January 6, 1992, Sheaneter Bogan, black female, was hired by MTD to work as a
general assembly employee at its Verona, Mississippi facility.
In 2010, after receiving her tool and die degree, Bogan applied to work in the tool and
die department as a machinist. In January 2011, MTD hired Gary Johnson to work in the tool
and die department as a machinist. Bogan was upset because they hired an outside candidate,
a young male with whom she had graduated tool and die school, instead of herself, who had
worked for MTD for around nineteen (19) years.
On May 19, 2011, Bogan was promoted to the tool and die department as a second shift
CNC operator. There was only one other female working in the tool and die department as

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

machinist out of around twenty-four (24) employees, Micky Bowers, who was white. There were
only around four black persons - Barry Ledbetter, Gary Johnson, Bruce Enos and Orlando
Marion. However, there were no other black females working in the tool and die department
other than Bogan. Bogan’s supervisors testified that they did not have any problem with her work
performance, and she showed up to work on time.
In the tool and die department, each week employees work a series of four shifts,
totaling ten-and-a-half hours each, which includes a thirty (30) minute unpaid lunch break.
Bogan clocked in at the beginning of the shift, and clocked out at the end. Employees did not
sign in or out when they took their lunch breaks. Further, employees could leave the plant
during their lunch break and were not required to sign out, or sign back in, when they left or
returned to the plant. During an employee's lunch break, the employee could use that time any
way he/she wanted to use it.
Bogan was told from the time she began work in the tool and die department that they
operate by different rules than the rest of the plant. It was the custom and practice of the tool
and die department that lunch breaks were longer than thirty (30) minutes. In fact, Bogan’s
lunch break could be anytime between 11:00 am until 12:00 pm. The lead man on the shift
would take the long lunch breaks with everyone else, so Bogan knew she was doing nothing
wrong.
While working for MTD, Bogan was also working on her degree in social work. MTD
worked around Bogan’s class schedule for the Fall 2012 semester.
On January 15, 2013, Bogan was called to a meeting with her supervisors, Doug Grant
and Ron Bateman, to discuss her schedule. At the meeting, Bogan was told that her schedule
would be from 5:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.
For the Spring semester Bogan had originally signed up for two classes. However,
after she was informed that MTD would no longer accommodate her school schedule for the
second class, Bogan dropped that class. The class Bogan did not drop met two days a week,
Tuesday and Thursday, between 10:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. Bogan only attended the class
sparingly.
Bogan did not clock out the few times she was able to attend the 10:30 a.m. class,
because she would only attend the class during her lunch break, and would not be gone for
more than the forty-five (45) minutes allowed for lunch. Bogan never asked for permission to
attend the 10:30 a.m. class, because she knew she did not have to do so, it was her lunch hour.
MTD became aware that Bogan was attending classes at the Tupelo Campus of Ole
Miss, so it conducted an investigation and terminated Bogan. MTD claims it fired Bogan for
leaving the facility while on the clock attending a class. After being terminated, Bogan was
replaced by a white male, John Trammel. 
b.

Defendant:

This case involves MTD’s termination of Bogan’s employment after she admitted leaving
the plant during working hours without permission, despite having been given a final warning to
adhere to her work schedule just months before. Even though Bogan admits she had been

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

informed that she could not leave work during her assigned shift to attend college courses, Bogan
admits she did so. Bogan appealed her termination to the Employee Peer Review Board. After
weighing evidence and testimony, this committee of her peers upheld the termination decision.
As background, MTD employed Bogan as a Wire EDM Operator in the Tool & Die
department at its Verona, Mississippi on an at-will basis. In May 2011, Bogan applied for and
MTD selected her to be a CNC Operator in the Tool & Die Department on the second (night)
shift. In March 2012, MTD acquired a wire EDM machine and Bogan bid for this position and
was selected. Bogan moved to the first (day) shift from March 2012 to her termination. The first
shift schedule is 5:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. and Bogan’s lunch was from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
At the time that Bogan bid for the Wire EDM Operator position, she was taking Social
Work classes at the University of Mississippi. In December 2012, Doug Grant met with Bogan
and informed her she could not attend classes during her work day. Bogan was informed that she
could finish the fall 2012 semester, but could not continue this arrangement in the spring. At this
same time, Grant counseled Bogan to adhere to her schedule of 5:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Shortly
thereafter, Grant sent an e-mail advising all employees not to be at work unscheduled and not to
work alone due to safety concerns.
Bogan does not dispute these facts. Nevertheless, on January 5, 2013, Bogan chose to
disregard the instructions and warnings she was given and came to work on a Saturday and
worked 15 hours. Therefore, on January 15, 2013, Grant and Bateman met with Bogan to
discuss her work schedule. During this meeting, both Grant and Bateman reiterated that Bogan
could not attend classes during her work day. During this meeting Bogan again received
employee counselling, was coached, and signed a document acknowledging that her shift time
was from 5:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and that any deviation from these hours would need prior
approval.
At the conclusion of the meeting Bogan was told to go home because it was past her shift
end time. Bogan agrees there was no question in her mind that she would be held to her regular
schedule at MTD after she received her final warning. Despite having just acknowledged that
she was not allowed to work outside of her scheduled shift, Bogan did not leave but instead
returned to work and did not leave until 7:00 p.m. As a result of her refusal to comply with
Grant and Bateman’s immediate and clear instruction, Bogan was given a “final warning notice”
for work schedule deviation.
Bogan disagreed with the final warning and appealed to the Employee Peer Review
Board (“EPRB”). The EPRB operates independently of MTD management and has complete
discretion to either affirm or overturn an MTD management employment disciplinary decision.
The EPRB is a board made up of four hourly and one salaried employees randomly drawn from a
volunteer group of trained and qualified board members.
Even though Bogan had been informed that she could not attend classes during the work
day and had been disciplined for deviating from her work schedule, Bogan continued to leave the
MTD facility, without authorization and during the work day, to attend classes
After a thorough investigation, MTD terminated Bogan’s employment on April 25, 2013.
Again, Bogan appealed to the EPRB. On April 30, 2013, the EPRB heard Bogan’s appeal. After
hearing all of the testimony and weighing all the evidence, the EPRB which on this occasion

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

included four African-American women and one male who had been randomly selected, voted
by secret ballot to uphold the termination.

9.

a.

1.

The following facts are established by the pleadings, by stipulation, or by
admission:
MTD employed Bogan as a Wire EDM Operator in its Tool & Die department at its

Verona, Mississippi location prior to her termination in April 2013.
b.

The contested issues of fact are as follows:

1.

Whether Plaintiff was treated any differently than similarly situated white
employees under nearly identical situations.
Whether Plaintiff was treated any differently than similarly situated male
employees under nearly identical situations.
Whether Plaintiff can identify similarly situated employees who were treated
differently under nearly identical circumstances.
Whether Defendant possessed a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its
decision to terminate Plaintiff.
Whether Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of her race.
Whether Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of her gender.
Whether Plaintiff can satisfy her prima facie case because MTD did not hire
someone outside of the protected class to replace her, but instead her former job
duties were added to those of an existing employee in the Tool & Die Department
- John Tramel (Caucasian).
Whether Plaintiff has suffered or is entitled to any damages.
Whether Plaintiff reasonable or diligently attempted to mitigate her damages, if
any.
What damages, if any, Plaintiff is entitled to receive.
Mixed questions of law and fact.
Whether Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because she is a black female
in terminating her.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

c.

The contested issues of law are as follows:

1.

Whether Plaintiff can satisfy her burden of proof of intentional race
discrimination under Title VII.
Whether Plaintiff can satisfy her burden of proof of intentional gender
discrimination under Title VII.
Whether Plaintiff can make a prima facie case of race discrimination.
Whether Plaintiff can make a prima facie case of gender discrimination.
Whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for Plaintiff’s termination was a pretext for discrimination.
Whether Plaintiff was discharged because of her race.
Whether Plaintiff was discharged because of her gender.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

10.

Whether Plaintiff reasonable or diligently attempted to mitigate her damages, if
any.
Whether Plaintiff has suffered or is entitled to any damages.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a punitive damages instruction.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees, costs, and front pay or reinstatement.
Whether Plaintiff can make a prima facie case of gender and race discrimination.

The following is a list and brief description of all exhibits (except exhibits to be used for
impeachment purposes only) to be offered in evidence by the parties. Each exhibit has
been marked for identification and examined by counsel.
a.

To be offered by the Plaintiff:

P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
P-11
P-12
P-13
P-14
P-15
P-16

Application
Employee Handbook
Letter Dated May 19, 2011
Series History
Attendance Policy
Bachelor of Social Work
Response to Interrogatory 14
Job Description
MDES Request for Information
MDES Determination Decision
Medical Records
2012 Taxes
2013 Taxes
2014 Taxes
2015 Taxes
2016 Check Stub

The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of the preceding exhibits are
stipulated. If the authenticity or admissibility of any of the preceding exhibits is
objected to, the exhibit must be identified below, together with a statement of the
specified evidentiary ground(s) for the objection(s):
Defendant objects to the following:
P-1

P-6
P-7
P-9

Object on grounds of relevance (FRE 402); Object on grounds it would mislead
jury, confuse the issues, and waste time (FRE 403); Object on grounds exhibit
contains inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802)
Object on grounds of relevance (FRE 402); Object on grounds it would mislead
jury, confuse the issues, and waste time (FRE 403)
Object on grounds of exhibit contains inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802)
Object on grounds of relevance (FRE 402); Object on grounds it would mislead
jury, confuse the issues, and waste time (FRE 403); Object on grounds of exhibit
contains inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802)

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

P-10

P-11

Object on grounds of relevance (FRE 402); Object on grounds it would mislead
jury, confuse the issues, and waste time (FRE 403); Object on grounds of exhibit
contains inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802)
Object on grounds of relevance (FRE 402); Object on grounds it would mislead
jury, confuse the issues, and waste time (FRE 403); Object on grounds of exhibit
contains inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802)

b.

To be offered by the Defendant:

D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
D-12
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
D-18
D-19
D-20
D-21
D-22
D-23
D-24
D-25
D-26
D-27
D-28
D-29
D-30
D-31
D-32
D-33
D-34
D-35
D-36
D-37
D-38
D-39
D-40

Handbook Acknowledgements
MTD Handbook – Tupelo Division
MTD Lifeline Telephone Number
February 9, 1996 Work Schedule Memo
February 14, 1996 Written Employee Consultation – Airap/MTD
November 30, 2000 Bob Bryson Memorandum (2 pages)
June 22, 2005 E-mail of Keith Blair to Tab Cherry regarding lay-off
Attendance Warning Notification for Sheaneter Bogan in 2004 and 2005
June 9, 2005 Memo of Tab Cherry
October 16, 2008 Employee Disqualification
Tuition Reimbursement and Invoices
Employee Peer Review Board for Bogan dated January 31, 2011
Job Bidding Policy and memos regarding Sheaneter Johnson Bogan
Loan Refinance Request
May 19, 2011 Acceptance of CNC Position
Job Description signed by Sheaneter Bogan
September 19, 2011 Memorandum of Doug Grant
January 10, 2013 E-mail from Doug Grant
Clock Report
January 15, 2013 Memo regarding work schedule signed by Sheaneter Bogan
January 16, 2013 E-mail of Ron Bateman
January 15, 2013 E-mail from Sheaneter Bogan to Doug Grant at 7:20 pm
January 22, 2013 Employee Disciplinary Notice for Sheaneter Bogan
Employee Peer Review Board for Bogan dated January 29, 2013
Employee Peer Review Board Handbook
February 12, 2013 discussion record of communication regarding appointments
March 25, 2013 Memo from Doug Grant to Tab Cherry regarding schedule
Investigation Report
Turnstile Reader
April 25, 2013 Employee Peer Review Board for Bogan
University of Mississippi Declaration and Transcripts for Bogan
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
Hours worked
Declaration and records of Key Staff Source, LLC
Declaration and records of Excelsior Staffing
Medical records from Shannon Family Medical Clinic/Norris Doss, FNP
Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Admissions
Ada Ruff Peer Review Documentation

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

D-41
D-42
D-43
D-44

Photos and video depictions of the MTD plant operations and the EDM machine
Demonstrative Exhibit #1- Timeline
Demonstrative Exhibit #2 –Communication – Decision Outline
Job Description signed by Sheaneter Bogan
The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of the preceding exhibits are
stipulated. If the authenticity or admissibility of any of the preceding exhibits is
objected to, the exhibit must be identified below, together with a statement of the
specified evidentiary ground(s) for the objection(s):

Plaintiff objects to the following:
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
D-12
D-14
D-15
D-17
D-18
D-20
D-21
D-24
D-25
D-27
D-29
D-30
D-35
D-36
D-37
D-40

FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay, Authenticity
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay, Authenticity
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay

D-42 FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
D-43 FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, Hearsay
11.

The following is a list and brief description of charts, graphs, models, schematic
diagrams, and similar objects which will be used in opening statements or closing
arguments, but which will not be offered in evidence:
Demonstrative Exhibit #1- Timeline
Demonstrative Exhibit #2- Communication –Decision Outline
Objections, if any, to use of the preceding objects are as follows:

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

Exhibit #1 – FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 402, Hearsay
Exhibit #2 – FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 402, Hearsay

If any other objects are to be used by any party, such objects will be submitted to
opposing counsel at least three business days before trial. If there is then any objection to
use of the objects, the dispute will be submitted to the court at least one business day
before trial.

12.

The following is a list of witnesses Plaintiff anticipates calling at trial (excluding
witnesses to be used solely for rebuttal or impeachment). All listed witnesses must be
present to testify when called by a party unless specific arrangements have been made
with the trial judge before commencement of trial. The listing of a WILL CALL witness
constitutes a professional representation, upon which opposing counsel may rely, that the
witness will be present at trial, absent reasonable written notice to counsel to the contrary.

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

Name

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

Will/
May
Call

[F]act/
[E]xpert
[L]iability/
[D]amages

Business Address &
Telephone Number

Sheaneter Bogan
Tab Cherry
Clifton Hobby
Ron Bateman
Doug Grant
Barry Ledbetter
Bruce Enos
Gary Johnson
Teresa Dye
Jessica Baker
Barry Smith
Jerilynn Billingly
Jan Baker
Janice Moore
Renita Jefferson
Gary Earnest
Clifford Smith
Peaches Shumpert
Randy Bogan
Clementines Mays
James Richardson
Norris Doss

Will
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May

F/L/D
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/LID
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/LID
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/LID
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/L/D
F/D
F/D
F/D
E/D

Nettleton, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Verona, MS
Shannon, MS
Shannon, MS
Tupelo, MS
Shannon, MS

Plaintiff reserves the right to call any witness listed by Defendants.
Will testify live.

Will testify by deposition:
Plaintiff reserves the right to use the deposition of any witness deposed in this matter if
that person is unavailable for trial.
State whether the entire deposition, or only portions, will be used. Counsel must confer,
no later than twenty-one days before the commencement of trial, to resolve all
controversies concerning all depositions (electronically recorded or otherwise). All
controversies not resolved by the parties must be submitted to the trial judge not later
than fourteen days before trial. All objections not submitted within that time are waived.

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

13.

The following is a list of witnesses Defendant anticipates calling at trial (excluding
witnesses to be used solely for rebuttal or impeachment). All listed witnesses must be
present to testify when called by a party unless specific arrangements have been made
with the trial judge before commencement of trial. The listing of a WILL CALL witness
constitutes a professional representation, upon which opposing counsel may rely, that the
witness will be present at trial, absent reasonable written notice to counsel to the contrary.
[F]act/
Will/
[E]xpert
May
[L]iability/
Business Address &
Name
Call
[D]amages
Telephone Number
Sheaneter Bogan

Will

Fact/Liability/Damages

Nettleton, MS

Tab Cherry

May

Fact/Liability

Verona, MS

Cliff Hobby

May

Fact/Liability

Tupelo, MS

Jessica Baker

May

Fact/Liability

Verona, MS

Teresa Dye

May

Fact/Liability

Verona, MS

Ron Bateman

May

Fact/Liability

Verona, MS

Doug Grant

May

Fact/Liability

Verona, MS

Gary Johnson

May

Fact/Liability

Verona, MS

Bruce Enos

May

Fact/Liability

Verona, MS

Peaches Shumpert

May

Fact/Liability

Verona, MS

Medical Records
Custodian-Shannon
Family Medical

May

Fact/Liability/Damages

Norris Doss, FNP
219 Broad Street
Shannon, MS 38868

Records Custodian- May
University of Mississippi

Fact/Liability

Records CustodianExcelsior Staffing

May

Fact/Liability/Damages

Records Custodian- May
Key Staff Source, LLC

Fact/Liability/Damages

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

Defendant reserves the right to call any witnesses listed by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the
right to use the deposition of any witness deposed in this matter if that person is unavailable for
trial.
Will testify live.

Will testify by deposition:

State whether the entire deposition, or only portions, will be used. Counsel must confer,
no later than twenty-one days before the commencement of trial, to resolve all
controversies concerning all depositions (electronically recorded or otherwise). All
controversies not resolved by the parties must be submitted to the trial judge not later
than fourteen days before trial. All objections not submitted within that time are waived.
✔

14.

This (✔)

is

is not a jury case.

15.

Counsel suggests the following additional matters to aid in the disposition of this civil
action:

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

16.

Counsel estimates the length of the trial will be

3-4

days.

17.

As stated in paragraph 1, this pretrial order has been formulated (a) at a pretrial
conference before a judicial officer, notice of which was duly served on all parties, and at
which the parties attended as stated above, or (b) the final pretrial conference having been
dispensed with by the judicial officer, as a result of conferences between the parties.
Reasonable opportunity has been afforded for corrections or additions prior to signing.
This order will control the course of the trial, as provided by Rule 16, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and it may not be amended except by consent of the parties and the
court, or by order of the court to prevent manifest injustice.
ORDERED, this the 17th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

____/s/Ron L. Woodruff _________
Jim Waide, MS Bar No. 6857
Rachel Pierce Waide, MS Bar No. 100420
Ron L. Woodruff, MS Bar No. 100391
Waide & Associates, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

_/s/ Robin Banck Taylor __________
Robin Banck Taylor, MS Bar 100195
Timothy W. Lindsay, MS Bar 1262
Blythe K. Lollar, MS Bar 104554
Attorneys for Defendant

Entry of the preceding Pretrial Order is recommended by me on this, the
of November, 2016.

7th

day

/s/ David A. Sanders___________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26869798.1