Brock-Burchett v. McNew Fabrication Inc

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

DOROTHY BROCK-BURCHETT PLAINTIFF

No. 4:20-cv-374-DPM

MCNEW FABRICATION, INC. and JEFFREY MCNEW DEFENDANTS

ORDER Jeffrey McNew admitted in his answer that he and his corporation employed Brock-Burchett. Doc. 10 at § 23. He now moves to dismiss the claims against himself, arguing failure to state a claim based on his exclusively corporate role. Doc. 11; FED. R. Clv. P. 12(b)(6). Brock- Burchett’s co-employment claims are plausible. The federal and state statutes create a broad category of who qualifies as an “employer.” 29 US.C. §§ 203(a) & (d); ARK. CODE ANN. § 11-4-203(4)(A). Brock- Burchett has alleged McNew’s involvement with and authority over her employment with sufficient particulars to bring him within the statutes’ category. Wirtz v. Pure Ice Co., 322 F.2d 259, 262-63 (8th Cir. 1963). Motion, Doc. 11, denied.

So Ordered.

IV4n toll D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge

22. September 2.02.0

-2-