With the exception of one decision, and an interesting one at that (described below), employers bested employees in these cases: DePriest v. Milligan (E.D. Ark., Jan. 12, 2015) – MSJ – gender discrimination; Wyre v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. (E.D. La., Jan.14, 2015) – 12(b)(6) – failure to provide protective equipment on the basis of gender is not an “ultimate employment decision” – conclusory allegations fails to state claim of race discrimination; Brogdon v. University of Delaware (D. Del., Jan. 13, 2015) – 12(b)(6) – race discrimination and retaliation; Allison v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (S.D. Ala., Jan. 12, 2015) – MSJ – sex, religion and retaliation; Spurlock v. University of Toledo (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 15, 2015) – rejecting plaintiff’s request for equitable tolling of limitations period; Hughes v. Goodwill Industries of Arkansas Inc. (E.D. Ark., Jan. 13, 2015) – 12(b)(6) – individual co-workers cannot be held personally liable under Title VII; Killian v. Donahoe (E.D. La., Jan. 15, 2015) – 12(b)(6) – failure to exhaust; Wint v. Palm Beach County S.D. Fla., Jan. 14, 2015) – Rooker-Feldman doctrine (federal district courts cannot review state court final judgments); Broshears v. Johnson (E.D. Ky., Jan. 13, 2015) – MSJ – federal employee – failure to exhaust; Rhodes v. Montgomery County (D. Md., Jan. 13, 2015) – MSJ – reasonable accommodation offered; Macklin v. FMC Transport, Inc. (E.D. Ark. Jan. 12, 2015) – MSJ – race; King v. Mansfield University of Pennsylvania(M.D. Pa., Jan. 15, 2015) – Motion to set aside taxation of costs after Title VII loss denied; Azim v. Tortoise Capital Advisors (D. Kan., Jan. 14, 2015) – defendants’ motion for a protective order granted; Fatemi v. Rahn(E.D. Ark., Jan. 12, 2015) – MSJ – HIPAA-related claims.
However, a transgendering male plaintiff claiming gender discrimination survived a motion to dismiss in Lewis v. High Point Regional Health System (E.D.N.C., Jan. 15, 2015). Defendant denied employment to plaintiff. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that Title VII does not provide a cause of action for discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court rejected this argument because the case does not involve sexual orientation and transgendered status has not been addressed by the Supreme Court or in Circuit precedent.