Dr. Archie Earl v. Norfolk State University et al
| Dr. Archie Earl |
| Norfolk State University, The Board of Visitors of Norfolk State University and The Commonwealth Of Virginia |
| 2:2013cv00148 |
| March 21, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Norfolk Office |
| Hampton City |
| Tommy E. Miller |
| Raymond A. Jackson |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
98
OPINION AND ORDER re 75 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by The Board of Visitors of Norfolk State University, The Commonwealth Of Virginia, Norfolk State University. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in par t, and DENIED in part. While the parties may choose to resume settlement discussions with a Magistrate Judge in the wake of this opinion in the limited time remaining before trial, if a final settlement is not reached in the interim, trial will comme nce as scheduled on Tuesday, March 22, at 10 a.m. as to the Equal Pay Act claims advanced by Dr. Earl, Dr. Coan and Dr. Agyei. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants as to the claims advanced by the remaining four Plaintiffs. If the parti es wish to resume settlement discussions with Magistrate Judge Krask, they should contact the Magistrate Judge Courtroom Deputies at 757-222-7222. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 3/17/16. Copies distributed to all parties 3/17/16.(ldab, )
|
|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM ORDER - At the final pretrial conference held on March 4, 2016, counsel for Defendants objected to Plaintiffs' use of two party depositions. For the reasons outlined (see order for specifics), the undersigned sustains Defendants' objection, subject to any subsequent finding by the district court that Plaintiffs have established the parties' unavailability, or that their testimony is otherwise necessary in the interest of justice, pursuant to Rule 32(a)(4)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Copies distributed to counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on 3/7/2016. (cchr)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER re: 38 Motion to Certify Class. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification and for an Order Authorizing Court Notice to Potential Class Members, ECF No. 38, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As to certification of a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED and the Court CONDITIONALLY CERTIFIES a collective action by the following class: All salaried male teaching faculty members wh o worked for Norfolk State University at any time since March 21, 2010. As to Plaintiff's request for court-ordered discovery of potential collective action members, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion. The Cour t DENIES Plaintiff's motion to the extent it seeks an order requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the email addresses and telephone numbers of putative collective action members and to post notice in conspicuous locations on the NSU cam pus, including NSU's website. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to the extent he seeks an order requiring Defendants to provide his attorney with the names and addresses of putative collective action members. Defendants are DIRECTED to pr ovide to Plaintiff's counsel, in a list in electronic format, the names and last known addresses of all potential members of the conditionally certified collective action within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Opinion and Order. Further , the Court DIRECTS that such information only be disseminated among Plaintiff's counsel and DIRECTS that Plaintiff's counsel may use such information only in connection with this litigation. The Court PROVIDES Defendants with leave to fil e objections to Plaintiff's proposed notice, ECF No. 38-7, or to propose their own form of notice, within fourteen (14) days after the entry of this Opinion and Order. The Court PROVIDES Plaintiff with leave to file a reply within seven (7) days after Defendants file any such objection or proposed notice. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 11/18/14. Copies distributed to all parties 11/19/14. (ldab, )
|
|
Filing
33
OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants' Third 24 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, IN PART, and DENIED, IN PART; the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Title VII race discrimination and ADEA age discrimination claims for lack of subject matterjurisdictio n. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Title VII sex discrimination claim because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's retaliation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the allegedly retaliatory acts occurring before December 8, 2011, and DISMISSES Plaintiff's retaliation claim for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the acts occurring after December 8, 2011. The Court DENIES Defendants' Third Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiff's EPA disparate treatment claim. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 6/26/2014. (rsim, )
|
|
Filing
21
OPINION AND ORDER Granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file within fourteen (14) days, if desired, a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this Opinion and Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 2/13/14. Copies distributed to all parties 2/13/14. (ldab, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
