Garrett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1:2019cv00069 - Document 29 (N.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 28 , DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTSPARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10 , GRANTING PARTIALMOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 21 ANDDENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF NO.[ 21]. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 3/19/20. (jss)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Garrett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG MARY GARRETT, Plaintiff, v. Civ. Action No. 1:19-CV-69 (Kleeh) WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 28], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10], GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 21] AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF NO. 21] Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi [ECF No. 28]. The R&R recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 10] and Motion to Strike [ECF No. 21] as moot, grant Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21], and deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike as to the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21]. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court adopts the R&R. I. BACKGROUND On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff, Mary Garrett (“Plaintiff”), filed her Complaint against Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights 1 Dockets.Justia.com GARRETT v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. 1:19-CV-69 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 28], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10], GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 21] AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF NO. 21] Act of 1964 [ECF No. 1]. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged disparate treatment regarding not only her compensation but also promotion decisions. She also claimed an alleged disparate impact of certain Wal-Mart policies and practices against compensation and promotional opportunities. female employees’ Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Immaterial Allegations [ECF No. 10]. In that motion, Defendant contended, inter alia, Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding her pay discrimination and disparate impact claims and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on the same claims. Defendant likewise requested the irrelevant allegations be stricken. Thereafter, on June 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint again alleging gender-based disparate treatment concerning her compensation and promotional opportunities [ECF No. 18]. She also claimed Defendant’s policies and practices had a disparate impact on her and other similarly-situated employees with respect to pay and promotions. female She further alleged she was a former member of the Dukes class action against Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. previously filed in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff claimed that she timely filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination on May 25, 2012 after that class action was 2 GARRETT v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. 1:19-CV-69 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 28], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10], GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 21] AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF NO. 21] dismissed. Plaintiff alleged she received her Right to Sue letter on March 26, 2019. Defendant filed its Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and to Strike Immaterial Allegations in response [ECF No. 21]. exhaust her Therein, Defendant argued Plaintiff failed to administrative remedies with respect to any pay discrimination claim and any disparate impact claim and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for her disparate impact allegation. stricken. It further requested certain allegations be In response, Plaintiff conceded she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies for any pay discrimination claim. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Court’s local rules, the Court referred the initial Partial Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Immaterial Allegations to the Magistrate Judge on May 30, 2019 [ECF No. 14]. The Magistrate Judge also considered the Partial Motion to Dismiss and Strike Immaterial Allegations in response to the Amended Complaint. The Motion was fully briefed. On August 7, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered the R&R [ECF No. 28]. 3 GARRETT v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. 1:19-CV-69 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 28], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10], GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 21] AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF NO. 21] II. DISCUSSION The R&R recommended that the Court grant Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. It further recommended the Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Strike be denied as moot. Lastly, the R&R recommended the Motion to Strike with respect to the Amended Complaint be denied. It informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days from the date of filing of the R&R to file “specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.” All counsel of record received notice of the R&R being filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system at 11:59 a.m. on August 7, 2019. To date, no objections have been filed. When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). without explanation, any Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, of the magistrate recommendations” to which there are no objections. 4 judge’s Dellarcirprete GARRETT v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. 1:19-CV-69 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 28], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10], GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 21] AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF NO. 21] v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). III. CONCLUSION Because no party has objected, obligation to conduct a de novo review. the Court is under no Regardless, the Court has undertaken a full review of the R&R and finds it thorough, wellreasoned and exhaustive. The Court certainly finds no clear error. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety [ECF No. 28]. Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Immaterial Allegations as it pertains to the Amended Complaint [ECF NO. 21] is DENIED. Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Immaterial Allegations [ECF NO. 10] is DENIED AS MOOT. As the R&R notes, the lone remaining claim in this matter is the disparate promotional treatment claim. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record as provided in the Administrative Procedures for 5 GARRETT v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. 1:19-CV-69 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 28], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10], GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 21] AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF NO. 21] Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. DATED: March 19, 2020 ____________________________ THOMAS S. KLEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6
]]>
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.
