Adams v. Trustees UNC Wilmington, et al. - National Association of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COURT'S DISCUSSIONI. Standard of ReviewSummary judgment is appropriate pursuant to Rule 56 of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure when no genuine issue ofmaterial fact exists and the moving party is entitled tojudgment as a matter of law.Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The party seeking summary judgmentbears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of agenuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477U.S. 317, 325 (1986).Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-movingparty may not rest on the allegations or denials in itspleading, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, but "must come forward with'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue fortrial. ' " Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith RadioCorp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (e)).As this court has stated, summary judgment is not a vehicle forthe court to resolve disputed factual issues. Faircloth v.United States, 837 F. Supp. 123, 125 (E.D.N.C. 1993).Instead,atrial court reviewing a claim at the summary judgment stageshould determine whether a genuine issue exists for trial.Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.regarding the negative affects of your service record on membersof the department."). (Cook Dep. Ex. 0.)24Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 146 Filed 03/15/2010 Page 24 of 39
In making this determination, the court must view theinferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light mostfavorable to the non-moving party.United States v. Diebold,Inc., 369 u.s. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam). Only disputesbetween the parties over facts that might affect the outcome ofthe case properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. Accordingly, the court mustexamine "both the materiality and the genuineness of the allegedfact issues" in ruling on this motion.Faircloth, 837 F. Supp.at 125.II. AnalysisAsoutlined supra, plaintiff's amended complaint alleges(1) religious discrimination, in violation of Title VII of theCivil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to2000e-17 (2000) ("Title VII"); (2) viewpoint discrimination andretaliation for protected expression, in violation of 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and the First Amendment; and, (3) denial of equalprotection of the laws, in violation of § 1983 and theFourteenth Amendment. The court previously dismissedplaintiff' sclaims for monetary damages against defendants intheir official capacities and plaintiff's Title VII claimsagainst defendants in their individual capacities.Defendantsnow move for summary judgment on all remaining claims.25Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 146 Filed 03/15/2010 Page 25 of 39
Page 1 and 2: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 3 and 4: against defendants in their officia
Page 5 and 6: The university undertook considerab
Page 7 and 8: their hope that the column and the
Page 9 and 10: Research: Plaintiff had one article
Page 11 and 12: on transphobic views to students."
Page 13 and 14: at large." (Id. ) For promotion to
Page 15 and 16: Defendant Cook was required to deci
Page 17 and 18: presentations. Levy also had proble
Page 19 and 20: Dr. Gary Faulkner ("Faulkner") comp
Page 21 and 22: faculty voted on plaintiff's applic
Page 23: On September 29, 2006, Cook sent an
Page 27 and 28: To prove his Title VII claim, plain
Page 29 and 30: or passed over for a promotion in f
Page 31 and 32: comparison of records to support a
Page 33 and 34: 1985) . Here, however, plaintiff's
Page 35 and 36: professional duties, plaintiff's in
Page 37 and 38: support plaintiff's contention that
Page 39: CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons

Adams v. Trustees UNC Wilmington, et al. - National Association of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?