Mosley v. Preston Cycles West, LLC

Mosley v. Preston Cycles West, LLC

Opinion

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Guatemion "Juan" Mosley filed this employment discrimination action on August 31, 2019. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Preston Cycles West, LLC subjected him to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and that it retaliated and discriminated against him in violation of Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The action is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [59]. For the reasons explained below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor on all of Plaintiff's claims except those alleging that Plaintiff was terminated on the basis of his race, which should [*2]  be allowed to proceed to trial.

I. FACTS

Unless otherwise indicated, the Court draws the facts stated herein from Defendant's "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue Exists" [59-2] ("Def. SMF") and Plaintiff's "Responses and Objections to Defendant's Statements of Undisputed Material Facts" [67] ("Pl. Resp. SMF"). Where appropriate, the Court directly cites to underlying exhibits filed by the parties.

Under the Local Rules, the Court must deem admitted those facts submitted by Defendant that are supported by citations to record evidence, and for which Plaintiff has not expressly disputed with citations to record evidence. See LR 56.1(B)(2)(a)(2), NDGa ("This Court will deem each of the movant's facts as admitted unless the respondent: (i) directly refutes the movant's fact with concise responses supported by specific citations to evidence (including page or paragraph number); (ii) states a valid objection to the admissibility of the movant's fact; or (iii) points out that the movant's citation does not support the movant's fact or that the movant's fact is not material or otherwise has failed to comply with the provisions set out in LR 56.1(B)(1).").

Accordingly, for those facts submitted by Defendant [*3]  that Plaintiff has failed to dispute with citations to record evidence, the Court must accept the facts as true, so long as the facts are supported by citations to record evidence, do not make credibility determinations, and do not involve legal conclusions. See E.E.O.C. v. Atlanta Gastroenterology Assocs., LLC, No. CIV. A. 1:05-CV-2504-TWT, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11312, 2007 WL 602212, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 16, 2007). The Court has nevertheless viewed all evidence and factual inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, as required on a defendant's motion for summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); McCabe v. Sharrett, 12 F.3d 1558, 1560 (11th Cir. 1994); Reynolds v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 989 F.2d 465, 469 (11th Cir. 1993).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.