Walker-Hynes v. Poore, 4:16-CV-920-JM-BD. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180328762
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, JR. , District Judge . The Court has carefully reviewed the Recommended Disposition filed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere. After careful consideration of the Recommendation and Plaintiff Stephanie Walker-Hynes's timely objections, and after a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court's findings in all respects. In addition to the adopted findings, the Court concludes that ev
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, JR. , District Judge . The Court has carefully reviewed the Recommended Disposition filed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere. After careful consideration of the Recommendation and Plaintiff Stephanie Walker-Hynes's timely objections, and after a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court's findings in all respects. In addition to the adopted findings, the Court concludes that eve..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MOODY, JR., District Judge.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Recommended Disposition filed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere. After careful consideration of the Recommendation and Plaintiff Stephanie Walker-Hynes's timely objections, and after a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court's findings in all respects.
In addition to the adopted findings, the Court concludes that even if Plaintiff had made a prima facie case of retaliation, she has not offered proof that Defendant's reasons for the decision to eliminate her position were pretextual. Plaintiff does not contest the need for the LRSD to eliminate positions in anticipation of the loss of the desegregation funding.
Furthermore, the Court agrees that any retaliation claim that Plaintiff might have attempted to assert as a result of her reassignment to the adult education department in April of 2013 would be barred by her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies related to that employment action.
Defendant Michael Poore's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 30) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Stephanie Walker-Hynes's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
