Hannah v. WestRock Services, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER that Plaintiff's 21 Objection to Memorandum and Recommendations are SUSTAINED, the 16 Memorandum and Recommendation on Defendant's 4 Motion to Dismiss are REJECTED, and the Defendant's 4 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. WestRock Services, Inc. answer to Plaintiff's Complaint due 8/13/2020. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 7/23/2020. (ni)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00160-MR-WCM

GREGORY HANNAH,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WESTROCK SERVICES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on remand from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with
the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County,
140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). [Doc. 29].
In an Order entered on March 20, 2019, this Court accepted the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissed the
Plaintiff’s Title VII claim with prejudice on the ground that Title VII did not
protect employees against sexual orientation discrimination. [See Doc. 23
at 2 (citing Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 99 F.3d 138 (4th Cir.
1996)]. The Plaintiff’s state law wrongful discharge claim was dismissed
without prejudice.

[Id.].

The Plaintiff appealed.

The Fourth Circuit

Case 1:18-cv-00160-MR-WCM Document 31 Filed 07/23/20 Page 1 of 3

subsequently placed the appeal in abeyance pending a decision by the
Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, 723 F. App’x 964 (11th Cir.
2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 1599 (Apr. 22, 2019), and Zarda v. Altitude
Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 1599
(Apr. 22, 2019). On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court held in Bostock that
discrimination against an employee because of their sexual orientation
constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within
the meaning of Title VII. Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1754. Thereafter, the Fourth
Circuit granted the parties’ consent motion to remand, and this matter was
remanded to this Court for further proceedings consistent with the Bostock
decision. [Doc. 29]. The Fourth Circuit issued its mandate on July 23, 2020.
[Doc. 30].
In light of the Fourth Circuit’s remand and the Bostock decision, the
Court enters the following Order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 21] are SUSTAINED; the
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 16] is REJECTED; and the
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] is DENIED. The Defendant shall
have twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this Order to file an Answer to
the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
2

Case 1:18-cv-00160-MR-WCM Document 31 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 23, 2020

3

Case 1:18-cv-00160-MR-WCM Document 31 Filed 07/23/20 Page 3 of 3