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.

Reid v. Dalco Nonwovens, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

July 21, 2014

JEREMY R. REID, Plaintiff,
v.
DALCO NONWOVENS, LLC, JASON LOGAN, AND RALPH SHERMAN, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Dalco Nonwovens, LLC's Motion to Strike, pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed on January 22, 2014, and Defendant Ralph Sherman's Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed on February 14, 2014. (Docs. 17, 22.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Jeremy R. Reid ("Reid"), a resident of North Carolina, alleges that Defendants Dalco Nonwovens, LLC ("Dalco"), Jason Logan ("Logan"), and Ralph Sherman ("Sherman") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and N.C. G.S. § 143-422.2. (Doc. 3/Complaint at 1.)

Plaintiff has complied fully with all prerequisites to the jurisdiction in this Court under Title VII. ( Id. at 2.) Jurisdiction of the Court is proper under § 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). ( Id. at 2.)

The facts recited herein are taken primarily from Plaintiff Reid's Amended Complaint in accordance with the federal civil rules:

Dalco is a corporation organized under laws of North Carolina with its principal place of business located in Conover, North Carolina.[1] Defendants Logan and Sherman are both citizens and residents of Catawba County, North Carolina. ( Id. at 2.) Logan was the production supervisor for Plaintiff's shift and Sherman was the Machine Operator working the shift immediately before Plaintiff. ( Id. )

Plaintiff began working as a machine operator at Dalco on July 16, 2012. ( Id. ) Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 24, 2012, Plaintiff Logan had a short text message exchange during which Defendant Logan called Plaintiff a "negro" and a "nigger." ( Id. ) On October 25, 2012, and overnight into October 26, 2012, Plaintiff claims he was assaulted by Defendant Logan when his hands were slapped and his walking path was physically blocked. ( Id. at 3.) As a result, Plaintiff filed his first EEOC charge on November 9, 2012. ( Id. )

On November 11, 2012, two days later, the locks were cut off of Plaintiff's locker, the culprit was not identified, and despite Plaintiff's immediate report of this incident to his supervisor, the locks were not replaced for two months. ( Id. ) The following day, Defendant Sherman told Plaintiff he (Sherman) would "have to see about getting rid of [Plaintiff]." ( Id. )

On December 30, 2012, Plaintiff's name was scratched off of his locker. ( Id. ) Later the same day, Sherman allegedly drove a forklift at Plaintiff and proclaimed that he would "run this boy' over, " putting Plaintiff in fear for his safety. ( Id. )

On January 10, 2013, Plaintiff was given a verbal warning for insufficient work by Defendant Dalco. ( Id. ) However, according to Plaintiff, this warning was without merit. ( Id. )

While working on January 19, 2013, and into the morning of January 20, 2013, Plaintiff was assigned a workload normally managed by two employees. ( Id. ) Additionally, a fellow employee forced more bales down Plaintiff's machine, which caused the machine to jam. ( Id. ) As a result of this added pressure, Plaintiff became "emotionally distressed" and had to be sent home early. ( Id. )

On January 23, 2013, Dalco suspended Plaintiff as a result of his work performance on January 20, 2013. ( Id. ) Dalco never asked Plaintiff to return to work since suspending him. ( Id. ) Ten days later Plaintiff filed for unemployment benefits and then filed his second EEOC charge on February 5, 2013. ( Id. ) Plaintiff claims that his treatment and his suspension were a result of retaliation because of his decision to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC. ( Id. at 4.) Dalco claims its interpretation of Plaintiff's filing for unemployment benefits less than a week after he received his suspension letter meant that Plaintiff had voluntarily ended his employment. (Doc. 21 at 4.) Dalco disputes the notion that Plaintiff waited at least ten days before filing a claim for unemployment benefits. ( Id. )

As a result of these alleged events Plaintiff claims that he has started smoking in excess, has suffered increased tension with his romantic relations, has increased difficulty sleeping, has suffered extreme anxiety, and worries about his future. (Doc. 3 at 5.) As such, ...


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.