Johnson v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 2:2020cv10210 - Document 22 (E.D. Mich. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 21 Report and Recommendation and (2) Granting Defendant's 15 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. United Airlines, Inc. Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SUSAN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-10210 Honorable Linda V. Parker v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. ________________________________/ OPINION & ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 21] AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 15] Plaintiff Susan Johnson filed this pro se action against Defendant United Airlines, Inc., alleging that Defendant breached a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and terminated Plaintiff based on her age and race. (See ECF No. 6.) Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 15.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 17.) Dockets.Justia.com On February 8, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued an R&R, recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 21.) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford concludes that Plaintiff’s race and age discrimination claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to timely file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge. (Id. at Pg. ID 153-55.) Magistrate Judge Stafford further concludes that the claims related to the CBA are preempted by the Railway Labor Act (id. at Pg. ID 155-58) and, even if the discrimination claims are not preempted, they should be dismissed for failure to state a claim (id. at Pg. ID 158-60). At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford informed the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within 14 days. (Id. at Pg. ID 161.) She further advised that, “[i]f a party fails to timely file specific objections, any further appeal is waived.” (Id. (citing Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991).) No party objected and the time to do so has expired. The Court reviewed the February 8, 2021 R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Stafford. The Court therefore (i) adopts the R&R (ECF No. 21) and (ii) grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 2 First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 23, 2021 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 23, 2021, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. s/ R. Loury Case Manager 3
]]>
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.
