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.

Smith v. Federal Express Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

May 6, 2019

TINO SMITH, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's February 15, 2019 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”). (ECF No. 21.) The Report recommends granting Defendant Federal Express Corporation's (“FedEx's”) November 9, 2018 Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff Tino Smith, Sr. filed an objection to the Report on March 4, 2019. (ECF No. 24.) FedEx responded to Smith's objection on March 18, 2019. (ECF No. 26.)

         For the following reasons, Smith's objection is OVERRULED. The Report is ADOPTED. FedEx's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

         I. Background

         Smith does not object to the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact. Those findings are adopted. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.140, 150 (1985). The following is a summary of the findings relevant to this Order.

         Smith started working at FedEx's Indianapolis, Indiana hub as a part-time handler in September 2009. (ECF No. 21 at 182.) On March 23, 2016, Smith filed a Complaint of Discrimination against FedEx with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. (Id. at 183.) He alleged that FedEx discriminated and retaliated against him by failing to hire him for various management positions in Indianapolis. (Id.) Smith later secured the position of Senior Manager and transferred to FedEx's Memphis, Tennessee hub. (Id.)

         FedEx fired Smith on November 30, 2016 for violating FedEx's Anti-Harassment Policy and its Acceptable Conduct Policy. (Id. at 185.) Smith left offensive material on several managers' golf carts. (Id. at 184.)

         Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC in Memphis on December 27, 2016. (Id. at 187.) The EEOC issued Smith a right to sue letter on October 4, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1 at 12.) Smith sued FedEx in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee on December 19, 2017. (ECF No. 21 at 180.) Smith alleged FedEx retaliated against him in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000ff et seq. (Id.) FedEx received Smith's Complaint on January 4, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1 at 27.) FedEx removed the case on February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 21 at 180.)

         II. Jurisdiction

         The Court has federal question jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Smith asserts a right to relief against FedEx under Title VII and GINA. Those claims arise under the laws of the United States.

         III. Standard of Review

         A. Report and Recommendation

         Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district-court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed.Appx. 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

         For dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's proposed findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not required to review -- under a de novo or any other standard -- those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. See Arn, ...


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.