ROBERTS v. CrestPARK STUTTGART, LLC, 5:13-cv-305-DPM. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20150611896
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr. , District Judge . Roberts's motion for reconsideration, NQ 61, is denied. Her points about retaliation and constructive discharge are re-argument; the Court has already addressed them. On discrimination, the Court doesn't see a hearsay problem. What Roberts said S.C. said would be hearsay, FED. R. EVID. 801(c), which cannot be considered. The Court noted and considered Oliver's affidavit. No. 59 at 6. The Court relied on Cox's conclusion after her investigation o
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr. , District Judge . Roberts's motion for reconsideration, NQ 61, is denied. Her points about retaliation and constructive discharge are re-argument; the Court has already addressed them. On discrimination, the Court doesn't see a hearsay problem. What Roberts said S.C. said would be hearsay, FED. R. EVID. 801(c), which cannot be considered. The Court noted and considered Oliver's affidavit. No. 59 at 6. The Court relied on Cox's conclusion after her investigation of..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.
Roberts's motion for reconsideration, NQ 61, is denied. Her points about retaliation and constructive discharge are re-argument; the Court has already addressed them. On discrimination, the Court doesn't see a hearsay problem. What Roberts said S.C. said would be hearsay, FED. R. EVID. 801(c), which cannot be considered. The Court noted and considered Oliver's affidavit. No. 59 at 6. The Court relied on Cox's conclusion after her investigation of S.C.'s conduct, not on the resident's exact words. The Court stands by its decision that S.C. is not a valid comparator and that there is no jury issue on pretext.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
