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.

Bolek v. City of Hillsboro

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 13, 2017

CYNTHIA YOUNG BOLEK, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HILLSBORO, an Oregon Municipal corporation; RON LOUIE, an individual; STEVE GREAGOR, an individual; and MICHAEL BROWN, an individual, Defendants.

          ORDER

          ANNA J. BR0WN, United States District Judge

         Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation (F&R)(#80) on November 14, 2016, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#43), deny Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#46}, and dismiss this matter. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

         When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Cynthia Young Bolek alleges numerous claims against the City of Hillsboro and a single claim against the three individual Defendants Ron Louie, Steve Greagor, and Michael Brown arising out of her employment with the City. In her First Amended Complaint (#8) Plaintiff asserts the following claims:

First and Second Claims:[1] Retaliation for reporting matters of public concern in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
Third Claim: Retaliation by a public employer in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.203;
Fourth Claim: Retaliation for whistleblowing in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.199;
Fifth Claim: Retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.030(1)(f);
Sixth Claim: Retaliation for whistleblowing in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.230;
Seventh Claim: Gender discrimination in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.030;[2]
Eighth Claim: Interference with leave rights pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.;
Ninth Claim: Retaliation for use of leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2 601, et seq.;
Tenth Claim: Interference with leave rights pursuant to the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA), Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.190, et seq.
Eleventh Claim: Retaliation for use of leave pursuant to the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA), Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.190, et seq.
Twelfth Claim: Disability discrimination and/or retaliation pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.130-145; and
Thirteenth Claim: Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

         The Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the facts underlying this case, and the Court accepts that summary. The Court, however, reiterates the following facts that are specifically pertinent to the parties' Motions:

         Plaintiff has been a Support Services Division Manager with j the Hillsboro Police Department since 2001 and reports directly to the police chief. In December 2012 Plaintiff suffered a cardiac arrest. Plaintiff was eventually cleared to work from home on a limited basis. Plaintiff was also cleared by her doctor to participate in meetings with the department's senior officials at the office. The City approved intermittent medical leave for Plaintiff, including flexible work hours and the ability to work from home.

         At the heart of Plaintiff s claims is a meeting that occurred on May 6, 2013. Plaintiff alleges at this meeting Defendant Ron Louie, who was acting as interim Chief of Police, announced to the group that he intended to "reorganize" the police-department management team, remove Plaintiff s responsibilities, reassign Plaintiff's subordinates to other managers, and change Plaintiff's supervisory structure so that she reported directly to one of her peers rather than to the police chief. According to Plaintiff Defendant Louie yelled profanities at Plaintiff during the meeting and also told her she was done and "didn't need to be there." Plaintiff was humiliated and devastated by this conduct because she believed she was being demoted. When Plaintiff asked Louie if they could discuss the issue privately, Louie refused and stated he was making this change for Plaintiff's own good because of her medical condition. Louie later acknowledged his conduct was "insulting, " that his demeanor "unacceptable, " that he was "pissed, " and that his body language was "forceful." F&R at 2-4, 6-7.

         Defendants move for summary judgment as to all claims asserted against them, and Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment as to her First, [3] Third, Fourth, Fifth, ...


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.