Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MORGAN v. LA STATE BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS, 13-CV-0958. (2014)

Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20140801h29 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER S. MAURICE HICKS, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court is a "Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion for Relief from Judgement" (sic) filed by the Plaintiff, Walter Morgan, Jr ("Morgan"). (Record Document 20). Morgan requests the Court: (1) amend its June 3, 2014 Memorandum Ruling and Order to "reflect the preservation of all of the Petitioner's claims against the Louisiana State Board of Barber Examiners, and that all of the Petitioner's claims
More

ORDER

S. MAURICE HICKS, Jr., District Judge.

Before the Court is a "Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion for Relief from Judgement" (sic) filed by the Plaintiff, Walter Morgan, Jr ("Morgan"). (Record Document 20). Morgan requests the Court: (1) amend its June 3, 2014 Memorandum Ruling and Order to "reflect the preservation of all of the Petitioner's claims against the Louisiana State Board of Barber Examiners, and that all of the Petitioner's claims for Harassment and Hostile Work Environment/Retaliation against Local 496 and The Association are preserved;" (2) order Petitioner to amend his Complaint to show remuneration and total benefits received as a result of his position as a Board member in this case; and (3) vacate the June 3, 2014 Memorandum Ruling and Order and reinstate all of the Petitioners claims against all Defendants.

The Court finds no need to amend its June 3, 2014 Memorandum Ruling and Order regarding the preservation of the Petitioner's claims against the Louisiana State Board of Barber Examiners ("The Board"). The Board did not file a Motion to Dismiss and therefore the claims against it remain. It is also unnecessary to amend the Order regarding Petitioner's alleged claims of Harassment and Hostile Work Environment/Retaliation against Local 496 and The Association. As written in the Court's Memorandum Ruling on this issue (Rec. Doc. 18), the facts plead by Morgan simply do not show an adverse employment action as required for all Title VII claims. Therefore this request for the Court to amend its Memorandum Ruling and Order is DENIED.

Petitioner next requests the Court give "relief from the June 3, 2014 Memorandum Ruling and Order, an (sic) Order[ ] to amend his Complaint to show remuneration and total benefits received as a result of his position as a Board member in this case." This request is DENIED.

Finally, the Plaintiff requests the Order granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by Local 496 and the Association be vacated. For the reasons provided in the Court's Memorandum Order (Rec. Doc. 18), dismissal of Morgan's Title VII claims under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate. Therefore, Petitioner's request is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer