Lampkins v. Mitra QSR KNE, LLC, 16-647-CFC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Delaware
Number: infdco20191203874
Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 26, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER COLM F. CONNOLLY , District Judge . Pending before me is Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument or Reconsideration. D.I. 185. Plaintiff asks by its motion that I reconsider the Memorandum Opinion and Order I issued on June 4, 2019, granting Defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims and motion for a new trial on her remaining claims. Plaintiff makes a single argument in support of her motion—namely, that I misappre
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER COLM F. CONNOLLY , District Judge . Pending before me is Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument or Reconsideration. D.I. 185. Plaintiff asks by its motion that I reconsider the Memorandum Opinion and Order I issued on June 4, 2019, granting Defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims and motion for a new trial on her remaining claims. Plaintiff makes a single argument in support of her motion—namely, that I misappreh..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
COLM F. CONNOLLY, District Judge.
Pending before me is Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument or Reconsideration. D.I. 185. Plaintiff asks by its motion that I reconsider the Memorandum Opinion and Order I issued on June 4, 2019, granting Defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims and motion for a new trial on her remaining claims.
Plaintiff makes a single argument in support of her motion—namely, that I misapprehended the law when I held that the demotion and reduction in hours upon which she based the disparate treatment claims she won at trial could not also form the basis of her hostile work environment claim. D.I. 185 at 1-2. But even assuming Plaintiff were correct that I misapprehended the law on this point, I held in the Opinion that "even if [Plaintiff's demotion and reduction in work hours] were considered, the 14 circumstances [cited by Plaintiff in support of her hostile work environment claim] viewed in their totality could not as a matter of law sustain a jury's finding that Mitra subjected [Plaintiff] to a hostile work environment." D.I. 182 at 33.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, at Wilmington this 26th day of November 2019, that Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument or Reconsideration (D.I. 185) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
