Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

NEWBY v. WHITMAN

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.
Oct 14, 2004
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT

JAMES BEATY, District Judge

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously herewith,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Document #15] is GRANTED with respect to the following claims: (1) allegations regarding Plaintiff's encounter with Supervisor Ralph Kirby in 1992; (2) allegations that in January 1996, his supervisor threatened to restrict his bathroom breaks; (3) allegations regarding disability discrimination or age discrimination based on a warning letter for failing to read his e-mails and similar issues following his eye surgery; and (4) allegations regarding disability discrimination or age discrimination based on Defendant's failure to promote him to the GS-12 level; and all of these claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a preliminary matter and subject to the Court's ensuing ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Document #15] is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's remaining claims, that is: (1) Disability discrimination based on EPA's refusal to reassign Plaintiff; (2) Age discrimination based on EPA's refusal to reassign Plaintiff; and (3) Retaliation based on EPA's refusal to promote Plaintiff to the GS-12 level, Director Brady's alleged threat to terminate Plaintiff, Director Brady's letters contesting Plaintiff's Worker's Compensation claim, and the January 7, 1999 letter of warning for failing to timely respond to his e-mail.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, however, that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Document #15] is GRANTED with respect to all of these remaining claims, that is: (1) Disability discrimination based on EPA's refusal to reassign Plaintiff; (2) Age discrimination based on EPA's refusal to reassign Plaintiff; and (3) Retaliation based on EPA's refusal to promote Plaintiff to the GS-12 level, Director Brady's alleged threat to terminate Plaintiff, Director Brady's letters contesting Plaintiff's Worker's Compensation claim, and the January 7, 1999 letter of warning for failing to timely respond to e-mail; and all of Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.