Obregon v. Capital Quarries Company Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: February 6, 2020
• Docket: 3:17-cv-00156
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

CARLO W. OBREGON and SAMUEL WATERS PLAINTIFFS

No. 3:17-cv-156-DPM

CAPITAL QUARRIES COMPANY, INC., owned by or held by Farmer Holding Company, Inc. DEFENDANT

ORDER The Court denies Obregon’s and Waters’s timely motion, Ne 67, to alter or amend the Judgment. The Court has reconsidered; but they haven't offered newly discovered evidence; and the Court doesn’t see a manifest error of law. Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Associates of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court didn’t determine Doran’s or anyone else’s credibility. Capital Quarries’ independent investigation ensured that management wasn’t a cat’s paw for Doran, whatever his true motivations may have been. Lacks v. Ferguson Reorganized School District R-2, 147 F.3d 718, 725 (8th Cir. 1998). Obregon and Waters say other employees weren't fired after failing to properly tag out equipment. Again, even if true, this fact doesn’t satisfy the rigorous standard for comparators. Johnson v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 769 F.3d 605, 613 (8th Cir. 2014). Obregon and Waters haven't specifically identified anyone who had multiple and

substantially similar disciplinary or safety incidents without being fired. The ostracism and similar actions, considered separately, don’t rise to the level of adverse employment actions. Jackman v. Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, F.3d 800, 804-5 (8th Cir. 2013). And considered together, along with the mean-spirited remarks, they do not top the high bar precedent imposes for a jury issue ona hostile work environment. Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet-Wilmington Corp., 894 F.3d 911, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2018). So Ordered. Waste D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge _& Rlarvony 2020

-2-