Kennebrew v. Cobb County School District, No. 1:2015cv02495 - Document 25 (N.D. Ga. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER: The 22 Report and Recommendation is received with approval and adopted as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The undersigned agrees with the observation by Judge Salinas that while Defendants argument that Plaintiff failed to establish an inference of race discrimination because two African-American applicants were hired may ultimately be persuasive, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is sufficient to survive at the Motion to Dismiss stage. Defendants 6 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as mo ot. Defendants 11 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants 11 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs Title VII race discrimination claim. Defendants 11 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs §§ 1981/1983 claim for race discrimination against the School District. Plaintiffs 14 Motion for Leave to Add a Paragraph is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to file their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan within fourteen days. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 04/18/16. (sk)

Download PDF
Kennebrew v. Cobb County School District Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION FRANK KENNEBREW, Plaintiff, v. COBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-2495-RWS ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas [Doc. No. 22]. Having carefully considered the record, the Report and Recommendation, and the objections filed thereto [Doc. No. 24], the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 22] is received with approval and adopted as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The undersigned agrees with the observation by Judge Salinas that while Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff failed to establish an inference of race discrimination because two African-American applicants were hired may ultimately be persuasive, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is sufficient to survive at the Motion to Dismiss stage. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is DENIED as moot. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 11] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 11] is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Title VII race discrimination claim. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 11] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s §§ 1981/1983 claim for race discrimination against the School District. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Add a Paragraph [Doc. No. 14] is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to file their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan within fourteen days. SO ORDERED, this 18th day of April, 2016. ________________________________ RICHARD W. STORY United States District Judge 2 AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.