Lumar v. Monsanto Company

Lumar v. Monsanto Company

Plaintiff:	Dwayne Lumar
Defendant:	Monsanto Company
Case Number:	2:2017cv13373
Filed:	November 25, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Office:	New Orleans Office
County:	St Charles
Presiding Judge:	Ivan L.R. Lemelle
Presiding Judge:	Karen Wells Roby
Nature of Suit:	Americans with Disabilities - 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
June 13, 2019	Filing 64 ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that defendant, Monsanto Company's 41 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and the plaintiff Dwayne Lumar's claims of race discrimination or harassment under Title VII, claims of disability discrimination or harassment under the ADA, and hostile work environment claims related to Title VII and the ADA are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 6/13/2019. (jls)
July 18, 2018	Filing 20 ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that Defendant's 6 Motion for Partial Dismissal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for sex discrimination pursuant to Title VII an d violations of the Equal Pay Act. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Court orders that those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on July 17, 2018. (mp)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 13, 2019

Filing 64 ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that defendant, Monsanto Company's 41 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and the plaintiff Dwayne Lumar's claims of race discrimination or harassment under Title VII, claims of disability discrimination or harassment under the ADA, and hostile work environment claims related to Title VII and the ADA are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 6/13/2019. (jls)

July 18, 2018

Filing 20 ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that Defendant's 6 Motion for Partial Dismissal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for sex discrimination pursuant to Title VII an d violations of the Equal Pay Act. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Court orders that those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on July 17, 2018. (mp)

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 Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lumar v. Monsanto Company
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dwayne Lumar
Represented By:	DaShawn Paul Hayes
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: Monsanto Company
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?