Porter v. Spear USA et al
Filing
15
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 9/1/2011. Discovery due by 11/28/2011. Dispositive Motions due by 1/16/2012. Telephone Conference set for 9/22/2011 at 10:00 AM with counsel calling in to the telephone number of (615) 695-2851 to speak with the Court. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/15/2012 at 10:00 AM before Senior Judge John T. Nixon. Jury Trial set for 6/26/2012 at 9:00 AM before Senior Judge John T. Nixon. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 4/19/11. (dt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JEAN PORTER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff
v.
SPEAR USA and SPEAR USA, LLC,
Defendant
No. 3:11-0134
Judge Nixon/Brown
Jury Demand
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01(d)(2), the following Initial
Case Management Plan is adopted:
1.
Jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction
in
this
matter
is
asserted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1343, and is not in dispute.
Plaintiff has asked the Court to take jurisdiction over the related
state law claims as well.
2.
that
she
Plaintiff’s Theory of the Case:
began
working
for
Defendants’
Plaintiff alleges
predecessor
Precision
Printing and Packaging, Inc., approximately 14 years ago. Plaintiff
is a black female over the age of 40 years. During the course of
her employment Plaintiff has been the victim of discrimination and
has sought assistance from the EEOC in EEOC numbers 253-2003-02589,
494-2006-00773, 494-2006- 00781, and 494-2007-01296. Plaintiff has
also
brought
her
claims
to
federal
court.
In
April
of
2008
Plaintiff settled her last case in mediation.
On or about October 21, 2008, 28 employees were laid off.
Plaintiff was told by her supervisor to go back to bobbins run on
a Titan machine. This was a machine Plaintiff had not used in
approximately two years. Because Plaintiff had not been on the
machine in some time it took a few days to get used to the machine
again. The operator, Denise Burney, began telling Plaintiff things
to do that Plaintiff was already doing. Plaintiff wanted no trouble
with her job and having seen this pattern before she went to a
supervisor, Tommy Arms, to apprise him of the situation. He
suggested talking to Burney so both Plaintiff and Arms went to do
so. This upset Burney. Plaintiff was off work for the next two
nights and upon her return on October 25, 2008, she was fired.
Plaintiff
alleges
that
she
was
subjected
to
retaliation
in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
The Age of Discrimination in Employment Act as well as under the
laws of the State of Tennessee, to wit: The Tennessee Human Rights
Act, § 4-21-101, et seq.
Plaintiff had had no problems at work
from the time her case was settled until she was fired six months
later. Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant to include but, not
limited to, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, lost wages
and benefits, attorney fees and costs.
3.
Defendant’s Theory of the Case:
Defendant Spear
denies that Plaintiff was discriminated against or retaliated
against in any manner. Plaintiff began her employment with Spear’s
predecessor, Precision Printing & Packaging, Inc., on January 31,
1994.
At the time of her termination, Plaintiff was employed as a
Grade 9 Packer/Helper in the Slitter Department. The Slitter is a
piece of machinery that cuts large rolls of paper into bobbins and
trims
the
edges
so
they
are
2
smooth
on
each
side.
As
a
Packer/Helper, Plaintiff was responsible for assisting the Slitter
Operator with problem resolution and quality issues during the
production process. One critical piece of equipment in the Slitter
Department is the Titan Slitter. SPEAR utilizes one operator and
one or two Packer/Helpers per shift to operate. Around October 28,
2008, SPEAR significantly reduced its workforce, including a number
of Packer/Helpers which thereby necessitated a reshuffling of its
workforce. Therefore, on or around the evening of October 21, 2008,
Plaintiff was assigned to work as a Packer/Helper on the Titan by
her supervisor. Plaintiff complained about this assignment for more
than 45 minutes. Plaintiff’s supervisor explained to Plaintiff that
her work on this machine was critical to the Company’s operation.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff refused to work as a Packer/Helper on the
Titan.
At that point, Plaintiff approached another supervisor
about the assignment. This supervisor reemphasized to Plaintiff
that she was assigned to the Titan and was going to be responsible
for
assisting
for
the
October
21,
2008
shift.
Thereafter,
Plaintiff returned to the Slitter Department, but refused to assist
the
Operator
in
running
the
Titan.
The
supervisor
observed
Plaintiff’s inappropriate and insubordinate behavior. Based upon
Plaintiff’s
disruptive
behavior
behavior,
on
October
the
22,
decision
2008,
was
made
and
to
her
previous
terminate
her
employment.
4.
Identification of the issues:
a.
Whether
the
facts
contention of discrimination and
3
support
Plaintiff’s
b.
If Plaintiff can establish her claim of
discrimination, is she also entitled to damages and in
what amount?
5.
Need for other claims or special issues under Rules
13-15, 17-21, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Do we need any?
6.
Witnesses:
a.
Plaintiff’s anticipated witnesses:
1.
Jean Porter;
2.
Denise Burney;
3.
Tommy Arms;
4.
Drew Goin;
5.
Margaret Vanova;
6.
Person familiar with pay Plaintiff has
7.
Person familiar with benefits Plaintiff
lost;
has lost.
b.
Defendant’s Anticipated Witnesses:
1.
2.
Tommy Arms;
3.
Denise Burney;
4.
Jean Porter;
5.
7.
Bobby Guy;
Drew Goins.
Initial disclosures and staging of discovery:
a.
Initial disclosures shall be made on or before
May 18, 2011;
4
b.
Fact discovery shall be complete by November
28, 2011;
c.
Parties do not anticipate any expert witnesses;
d.
Electronic discovery: The parties have elected
to opt out of the standard order regarding electronically
stored data and are working toward their own agreement on
the issue.
e. Discovery Motions: Prior to filing any discovery
related motion the parties will schedule and conduct a
telephone conference with the Magistrate Judge. [The
counsel
requesting
the
conference
shall
check
with
opposing counsel as to their availability before setting
a time certain with the Court.]
8.
Dispositive Motions:
Any dispositive motion shall
be filed on or before January 16, 2012.
Any response shall be
filed on or before February 17, 2012.
Any reply shall be filed on
or before March 2, 2012, from reply.
If a dispositive motion is
filed before the cut off date, response and reply shall be moved up
accordingly. The motion and response are limited to 25 pages and
the
reply,
if
any,
is
limited
to
five
pages,
absence
court
permission for longer pleading.
9.
Other deadlines:
Any motions to amend to bring in
additional parties shall be made by September 1, 2011;
10.
Subsequent Case Management Conference: A subsequent
telephonic case management conference shall be held on September
5
22, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. with counsel calling in to the telephone
number of (615) 695-2851 to speak with the Court.
11.
Alternate
Dispute
Resolution:
The
parties
anticipate that this may be a case wherein alternate dispute
resolution is appropriate.
The parties shall report to the court
on August 21, 2012, if they desire to engage in alternate dispute
resolution.
12.
Consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge:
At
this time the parties do not consent to trial before the Magistrate
Judge.
13.
Target Trial Date:
This action is set for trial by
jury and the estimated length of trial is two to three days.
After
consulting with Judge Nixon’s courtroom deputy, this matter is set
for trial on June 26, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.
Judge Nixon will conduct
the final pretrial conference on June 15, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
Judge Nixon will issue a separate order covering his requirements
for the final pretrial conference and the trial.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?