Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Spearman v. Rehabilitation Centers, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

April 2, 2019

LOUISE T. SPEARMAN PLAINTIFF
v.
REHABILITATION CENTERS, LLC d/b/a Millcreek of Magee DEFENDANT

          ORDER

          DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court in this employment discrimination action is Rehabilitation Centers, LLC's motion for summary judgment. Doc. #38.

         I

         Procedural History

         On November 1, 2017, Louise T. Spearman, acting pro se, filed a complaint for employment discrimination against “Acadia Healthcare Inc dba Millcreek of Magee.” Doc. #1.

         The complaint asserts a claim for wrongful termination based on sex. Id. On January 11, 2018, Rehabilitation Centers, LLC (“Millcreek), ” asserting that it was “incorrectly identified as Acadia Healthcare, ” answered the complaint.[1] Doc. #8. On November 13, 2018, Millcreek filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. #38. Spearman did not respond to the motion.

         II

         Summary Judgment Standard

         Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[s]ummary judgment is proper only if the pleadings and record materials reveal no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Renwick v. PNK Lake Charles, L.L.C., 901 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir. 2018). “A material fact is one that might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law, and a fact issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In making these determinations, a court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all justifiable inferences in the non-movant's favor.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of identifying the portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and the nonmovant must then point to or produce specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue of material fact.” James v. Woods, 899 F.3d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party satisfies this initial burden by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Celtic Marine Corp. v. James C. Justice Cos., Inc., 760 F.3d 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2014).

         When, as here, the moving party raises a defense of qualified immunity:

the court must decide: 1) Whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, make out a violation of a constitutional right; and 2) whether that right was ‘clearly established' at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct so that a reasonable official in the defendant's situation would have understood that his conduct violated that right.

Dean v. Phatak, 911 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 2018).

         III

         Factual ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.