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.

Spangler v. City of Monument

United States District Court, D. Oregon

December 21, 2017

AMY SPANGLER, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MONUMENT, WILLIAM RAY TURNER, PAT McCARY, and NICHOLAS DEVINE Defendants.

          Beth Creighton Michael Rose Creighton & Rose, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Steven Kraemer Leslie Lopez Kraemer, Lopez & Lewis Attorneys for Defendants City of Monument and Pat McCary

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, United States District Judge

         Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) on August 17, 2017, recommending that the Court grant in part Defendants City of Monument (“City”) and Pat McCary's motion to dismiss and grant their request for judicial notice. See F&R, ECF 80. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the F&R. See Pl.'s Objs., ECF 83. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). After reviewing the F&R, the parties' briefs, the record in this case, and the relevant law, the Court adopts the F&R in part with modifications. The Court finds no basis to modify those portions of the F&R to which the parties did not object.

         BACKGROUND

         Detailed recitations of this case's factual and procedural backgrounds can be found in the F&R and the Court will not repeat them here. See F&R 2-4. In sum, Plaintiff, a former City employee, brings employment discrimination and civil rights claims under federal and Oregon state law against: the City of Monument; City Councilors McCary, William Ray Turner; and McCary's son Nicholas Devine. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges the following six claims:

1. hostile work environment based on sexual harassment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Turner;
2. First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Turner and McCary;
3 . “Sex Discrimination/Sexual Harassment” under Or. Rev. Stat. (“O.R.S.”) § 659A.030(b) against the City;
4. retaliation for whistleblowing under O.R.S. 659A.030(f), 659A.199, and 659A.203 against the City, McCary, and Devine;
5. interference with economic relations under Oregon law against Turner; and
6. injunctive relief against all Defendants.

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36-69, ECF 29. Defendants City and McCary moved to dismiss claims for relief 2, 3, 4, and 6. Magistrate Judge Sullivan recommended, in relevant part, the following dispositions of Defendants' Motion:

2. dismiss for failure to state a claim with leave to amend;
3. dismiss time-barred factual allegations and dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim with leave to amend;
4. dismiss time-barred factual allegations and dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim ...

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.