BLESSING et al v. NAMCO LLC et al - Document 19
Court Description:
REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56 - Set Deadlines: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/17/2011. Plaintiffs' Response due by 11/07/2011. Defendant's Reply due by 11/14/2011. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)
Loading PDF...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
TROY BLESSING AND
CHRISTENE BRADBURY,
PLAINTIFFS
v.
NAMCO, LLC.,
DEFENDANT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 2:10-cv-408-DBH
REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56
The primary issues on the defendant’s summary judgment motion are:
1.
The applicability of the Maine Whistleblower’s Act, 26 M.R.S.A.
§§ 831-840, given that the agency in question was OSHA.
The plaintiff
Blessing also claims that he reported violations to his employer, the defendant,
and suffered adverse action as a result. Bard v. Bath Iron Works, 590 A.2d
152, 156 (Me. 1991).
2.
Whether the plaintiff Bradbury can meet the prima case under
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and can rebut the
defendant’s claimed legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the action.
Each party contemplates no more than 40 items in their respective
factual statements.
It appears that many of the “historical” facts are
undisputed, and that the primary disputes will be over whether there is enough
for a factfinder to draw an inference of illegitimate motive or pretext. I therefore
encouraged the lawyers to attempt to stipulate as many facts as possible and to
focus their motion practice on what is left. The defendant shall file its motion
by October 17, 2011.
The plaintiffs shall respond by November 7.
Any
defendant’s reply shall be filed by November 14.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
