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.

Jordan v. South Carolina Department of Transportation

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

February 28, 2019

JEFFREY JORDAN, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jeffrey Jordan (Jordan) filed this employment action against his employer, Defendant South Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT), complaining of retaliation. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting DOT's motion for summary judgment be granted. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

         The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 14, 2018. Jordan filed his objections on January 11, 2019, and DOT filed its reply on February 1, 2019. The Court has reviewed the objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly.

         This is Jordan's second job discrimination suit against DOT. The parties settled the first action with a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to all claims that predated April 21, 2014, the date of the stipulation. Thus, this lawsuit covers Jordan's claims against DOT from April 21, 2014, until January 13, 2017, when he filed his amended complaint in this lawsuit.

         Here, Jordan complains DOT retaliated against him because he filed his first action. Jordan specifically alleges the following:

a. [His] time and attendance and performance of work typically within his scope of duties was questioned in an accusatory manner without justification;
b. [He] was subjected to retaliatory statements by Mark Dezurik (Dezurik) and Dusty Turner (Turner), both of whom were in his chain of command and had been called as witnesses in his prior case;
c. Upon information and belief, [DOT's] management advised Jeremy Knight, then-Interim Resident Maintenance Engineer [(RME)] and [Jordan's] supervisor, to attempt to get rid of [him];
d. Management failed to investigate when another employee reported that [Jordan] was being subjected to retaliation;
e. [Jordan] received an unfavorable performance rating; [and]
f. [Jordan] was denied selection or even an interview on November 18, 2014, for [an RME] position.

         Amended Complaint ¶ 11. These retaliation claims fall into two broad categories: Subsections “a.” through “e.” enumerate DOT's alleged retaliation in its purported mistreatment of Jordan (mistreatment claims); and Subsection “f.” concerns DOT's asserted retaliation in failing to interview or select Jordan for the RME position in Saluda County for which he applied (application claim).

         Jordan offers three objections to the Report. First, he “objects to the [M]agistrate [J]udge's conclusion that no reasonable jury could find a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether or not [DOT's] reasons for excluding [Jordan] ...


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.