Nemo v. RR Donnelley/Logistics Services (JOINT ASSIGN) (MAG+)

Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit Alabama Northern District Nemo v. RR Donnelley/Logistics Services (JOINT ASSIGN) (MAG+)

Nemo v. RR Donnelley/Logistics Services (JOINT ASSIGN) (MAG+)

Plaintiff:	Steve J. Nemo
Defendant:	RR Donnelley/Logistics Services
Case Number:	2:2017cv02130
Filed:	December 19, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Office:	Southern Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Madeline Hughes Haikala
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 8, 2019	Filing 27 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - RRD has asked the Court to either dismiss Mr. Nemos complaint or enter judgment for the company on the merits of Mr. Nemos claims. (Doc. 8 ). Reading Mr. Nemos allegations liberally, Mr. Nemo has identified facts that would allow him to prove that he was an employee of RRD for purposes of Title VII. With respect to Mr. Nemos ADEA claim, these factual allegations also support a finding that Mr. Nemo was an employee of RRD under the common-law agency and economic re alities tests. Therefore, the Court denies RRDs Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Although the independent contractor form states that drivers could reject any delivery opportunity and have no obligation to offer delivery work continually (Doc. 10 -1 , p. 13, 6, 9), Mr. Burroughs instructed drivers that they had to make certain deliveries. (Doc. 23 -1, p. 20). These inconsistencies constitute disputed issues of fact concerning the degree of control that RRD exercised over Mr. Nemos work. Those questions of fact prevent RRD from establishing, as a matter of law, that Mr. Nemo was an independent contractor. Consequently, the Court denies RRDs motion for summary judgment. Having denied RRDs motion, the Court asks the parties to please comply with their Rule 26(f) obligations within 14 days. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/8/2019. (KEK)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 8, 2019

Filing 27 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - RRD has asked the Court to either dismiss Mr. Nemos complaint or enter judgment for the company on the merits of Mr. Nemos claims. (Doc. 8 ). Reading Mr. Nemos allegations liberally, Mr. Nemo has identified facts that would allow him to prove that he was an employee of RRD for purposes of Title VII. With respect to Mr. Nemos ADEA claim, these factual allegations also support a finding that Mr. Nemo was an employee of RRD under the common-law agency and economic re alities tests. Therefore, the Court denies RRDs Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Although the independent contractor form states that drivers could reject any delivery opportunity and have no obligation to offer delivery work continually (Doc. 10 -1 , p. 13, 6, 9), Mr. Burroughs instructed drivers that they had to make certain deliveries. (Doc. 23 -1, p. 20). These inconsistencies constitute disputed issues of fact concerning the degree of control that RRD exercised over Mr. Nemos work. Those questions of fact prevent RRD from establishing, as a matter of law, that Mr. Nemo was an independent contractor. Consequently, the Court denies RRDs motion for summary judgment. Having denied RRDs motion, the Court asks the parties to please comply with their Rule 26(f) obligations within 14 days. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/8/2019. (KEK)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Nemo v. RR Donnelley/Logistics Services (JOINT ASSIGN) (MAG+)
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Steve J. Nemo
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: RR Donnelley/Logistics Services
Represented By:	Stacey Thurman Bradford
Represented By:	Felicia Teanna Long
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?