HOUSTON v. CITY OF ATLANTA, 1:15-CV-3112-TWT. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160115h98
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, Jr. , District Judge . This is an employment discrimination action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 11] of the Magistrate Judge recommending granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 5]. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff cannot conflate his hostile work environment claim and his retaliation claim to expand his EEOC charge or to avoid the
Summary: ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, Jr. , District Judge . This is an employment discrimination action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 11] of the Magistrate Judge recommending granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 5]. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff cannot conflate his hostile work environment claim and his retaliation claim to expand his EEOC charge or to avoid the ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS W. THRASH, Jr., District Judge.
This is an employment discrimination action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 11] of the Magistrate Judge recommending granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 5]. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff cannot conflate his hostile work environment claim and his retaliation claim to expand his EEOC charge or to avoid the 180 day filing requirement. His Section 1983 claim is barred by the statute of limitations. He fails to allege facts that would support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress or a negligent hiring claim. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 5] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is denied as to the retaliation claim in Count II. It is GRANTED as to all other claims.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
