Summary
finding sufficient plaintiff's allegation that she, as an executive director subject to an employment contract, was similarly situated to other "rank and file" employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement
Summary of this case from McCoy v. Town of PittsfieldOpinion
C.A. No. 1:18-cv-566-MSM-LDA
01-08-2020
Karen Testa, Plaintiff, v. Salvatore Mancini Resource & Activity Center, Inc., et. al. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The matter before the Court is Defendants' Limited Objection (ECF No. 25) to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond (ECF No. 24) (the "R&R"), concerning the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16). The Defendants' objection to the R&R claims that the Magistrate Judge was in error by holding that Count IX of the Complaint does not involve public employment decision-making and finding, therefore, that Enquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) is inapplicable.
The Court's review of the R&R is pursuant to Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After reviewing the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16), the Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20), the Reply to the Response to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23), the R&R, the Objection to the R&R (ECF No. 25) the Response in Opposition to the Objection to the R&R (ECF No. 26) and the Reply to the Response to the Opposition to the Objection to the R&R (ECF No. 28), the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Almond's thorough and well-reasoned findings and recommendations. The Court accordingly ACCEPTS the R&R. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED as to Count VIII. Count VIII is DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is otherwise DENIED as to all other counts. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/_________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge 1/8/2020