Wons v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: March 20, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00480
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 23-cv-00480-RM-SBP

RICHARD R. WONS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC.,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This employment discrimination case is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Prose (ECF No. 69) to deny Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21). The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. More than fourteen days have elapsed since the Recommendation was issued, and no objection has been filed. Plaintiff was terminated after failing to comply with Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. In his Amended Complaint, he asserts multiple discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act as well as wrongful termination claims. The target of Defendant’s Motion is Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant wrongfully terminated him by violating the accommodation request policy’s terms by not assigning him an accommodations advisor. Applying Colorado law, the magistrate judge determined there were factual issues regarding the documents and conduct Plaintiff contends constituted an express or implied contract that precluded resolving Defendant’s Motion at this stage. “In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis was sound and discerns no error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Recommendation, which is incorporated into this Order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 69) and DENIES the Motion (ECF No. 21). DATED this 20th day of March, 2024. BY THE COURT:

Senior United States District Judge