Perez v. Staples Contract and Commercial Inc

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 35 Report and Recommendation, denying 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and notifying parties they are permitted to conduct limited discovery on the is sue of whether Defendants are an integrated and/or joint employer under the FMLA, whether Defendants employed more than 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of Angstadts worksite, and granting Defendants leave to refile their motion for summary judgment on this issue at the conclusion of the limited discovery period. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 08/27/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, United
States Department of Labor,

C/A No. 3:13-cv-1775-JFA

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc. and
Staples, Inc.
Defendants.
Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (“Plaintiff”),
has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Jeffery Angstadt (“Angstadt”) asserting that Staples Contract and
Commercial, Inc. and Staples, Inc. (“Defendants”) violated the Family Medical Leave Act
(“FMLA”) of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, by failing to notify Angstadt of his eligibility status
and rights and responsibilities under the FMLA in response to his request for leave to care for his
wife. Defendants’ filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff
filed a response in opposition to the motion, ECF No. 30, and Defendants replied. ECF 34.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should deny Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and this court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection
is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).

Defendants were advised of their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on August 7, 2014. However, Defendants did not file objections. In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give an
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and
denies the motion to dismiss. The court further adopts the Report’s recommendation that the
parties be permitted to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether Defendants are an
integrated and/or joint employer under the FMLA and whether Defendants employed more than
50 employees within a 75-mile radius of Angstadt’s worksite. Defendants are granted leave to
refile their motion for summary judgment on this issue at the conclusion of the limited discovery
period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 27, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2