Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lovell v. Office of Financial Institutions

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

March 15, 2019

DAMON LOVELL
v.
THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, ET AL.

          RULING AND ORDER

          Judge Brian Jackson United States District Court

         Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 11 and 15) Damon Lovell's ("Plaintiff) complaints. Plaintiff filed his complaint against the Office of Financial Institutions ("OFI"), and assorted OFI employees:

1.) John Ducrest, Commissioner ("Ducrest")
2.) Barry Esminger, District Area Office Manager ("Esminger")
3.) Monique Staley, Compliance Examiner ("Staley")
4.) Danielle LeBlanc, former OFI employee ("LeBlanc")
5.) Mark Heroman, former OFI employee ("Heroman")
6.) Kathleen Parrish, former OFI employee ("Parrish")[1]

         Plaintiff alleges various violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ("Title VU") and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs complaints.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs 31-page, 234 paragraph complaint under the instant Docket Number reads as a complete record of all slights, real or perceived, major or minor, suffered by Plaintiff during his brief employment at OFI. Setting forth each and every incident complained of in Plaintiffs complaint would result in an unnecessarily long and cumbersome ruling. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court shall address Plaintiffs complaint generally. Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed two complaints in this matter, one bearing the instant Docket Number, the other bearing Docket Number 3:18-CV-00624-BAJ-EWD. In the case bearing the instant Docket Number, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the aforementioned OFI employees for race and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 24 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. In the case originally bearing the Docket Number 3:18-CV-00624-BAJ-EWD, Plaintiff makes claims against OFI and other OFI employees, including John Duerest, Christine Kirkland, Julie Cooper, and Kathleen Parrish, for systematic denial of employment to African American males under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 24 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. It is not immediately apparent to the Court why Plaintiff filed two separate complaints in this matter, given that these matters arise from the same series of events and are brought against the many of the same Defendants. The matters were consolidated under the instant Docket Number on October 12, 2018. As both complaints arose out of the same series of events, the Court shall address in this consolidated ruling.

         Plaintiff alleges that he was hired as a "compliance manager"[2] on June 1, 2015. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 12). Plaintiff contends that from the first day he began working at OFI, he began to notice disparate treatment, as he alleges that he did not receive a job orientation, whereas a white male employee hired four months later did. (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15). Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied healthcare coverage for many months by Program Director Kathleen Parrish, whereas a biracial female coworker claimed that her healthcare coverage started a mere 30 days after her employment commenced. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 17). Plaintiff also cites the following incidents in his claims for race and gender-based discrimination:

1) He was not given an access card in what he considers to have been a timely fashion. (Id. at¶¶ 21, 22)
2) Plaintiffs request to train with Mr. Negel Quintal, a black male, was denied, whereas another white male employee was permitted to travel to Lafayette ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.