Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. Westmor Industries LLC

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

February 21, 2019

CLIFFORD THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
v.
WESTMOR INDUSTRIES LLC, Defendant.

          Clifford Thompson, pro se plaintiff.

          Bradley J. Lindeman and Melissa Dosick Riethof, MEAGHER & GEER, PLLP, for defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOHN R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff Clifford Thompson brought this action against Westmor Industries LLC (“Westmor”), his former employer, alleging that Westmor discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (2d Am. Compl. at 3-4, Dec. 5, 2017, Docket No. 64.) Thompson alleges that Westmor discriminated against him “on the basis of [his] race (black) and national origin (West Africa).” (Id. at 6.) He alleges that he suffered adverse employment actions when Westmor scrutinized his work, did not send him to welding school, and terminated him. (See Id. at 4.)

         Presently before the Court is the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommending that the Court grant Westmor's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Thompson's Motion for Summary Judgment. (R&R, Oct. 17, 2018, Docket No. 147.) Thompson objects. (Objs., Nov. 5, 2018, Docket No. 148.)

         Because the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in determining that Westmor is entitled to summary judgment in this case, the Court will overrule Thompson's Objections and adopt the R&R.

         DISCUSSION

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Upon the filing of an R&R by a magistrate judge, “a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Proper objections should “specify the portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made and provide a basis for those objections.” Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). Objections that “merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error.” Id.

         Upon thorough review of Thompson's objections, the Court finds that they repeat arguments presented to and considered by the Magistrate Judge when he issued the R&R. As such, the Court will review Thompson's objections for clear error. Nevertheless, even reviewing the objections de novo, the Court would overrule them and adopt the R&R.

         II. THOMPSON'S OBJECTIONS

         Thompson notes that: (1) all the employees of Westmor that move metal sheets do so in the same way that he did; (2) Westmor does not dispute that it has no written policy on how to conduct this task; (3) Thompson was never trained to conduct this task; and (4) the only way for him to learn how to do this task was to watch other employees. (Objs. at 1, 5, 10; see also Pl.'s Reply at 2-3, Dec. 4, 2018, Docket No. 155.) The Magistrate Judge considered these facts but found that, “[e]ven if Defendant failed to train Plaintiff on proper safety procedures for equipment he was using, and then proceed[ed] to terminate Plaintiff's employment for violation of a safety procedure, that alone does not constitute discriminatory animus.” (R&R at 16.) The Magistrate Judge found that Thompson failed to even allege that other employees were provided with training of which he was deprived. (Id.) These findings are not clearly erroneous, and Thompson's objections will be overruled.

         Thompson alleges that employees who were not members of his protected class conducted tasks the same way he did, yet his method was labeled unsafe while theirs was not. (Objs. at 1, 3, 5.) The Magistrate Judge considered this argument and did not clearly err in finding no evidence of discriminatory animus. The Magistrate Judge noted that Thompson did not provide any admissible evidence that Westmor employees involved in the decision to terminate him had ever observed another employee commit a safety violation without reprimand under similar circumstances. (R&R at 17.) Thompson's objections on this issue will be overruled.

         Thompson makes numerous arguments regarding Westmor's proffered reasons for not sending him to welding school. (Objs. at 3-5, 7; Pl.'s Reply at 1-2.)[1] However, none of these arguments disturb the Magistrate Judge's reasons for finding that Westmor is entitled to summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge found that Thompson had not provided evidence to rebut the sworn affidavits of Westmor employees stating that not all employees are sent to welding school and that at least three white employees at Westmor who had similar qualifications to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.