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 [phone] 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 [phone] 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