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.

Peterman v. Tinsley

July 31, 2007

MARY PETERMAN PLAINTIFF
v.
DERRICK TINSLEY AND GREAT DANE, L.P. DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

This is an employment discrimination suit brought under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act ("ACRA").*fn1 In its Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Defendant Great Dane raised a new issue arguing that Defendant Tinsley should be dismissed from suit, because an individual supervisor cannot be held liable under ACRA. I refused to address the issue at that time, directing Plaintiff to address the issue. Plaintiff has now responded (Doc. No. 19).

In Plaintiff's response, my attention was brought to an earlier ruling, Barbara Sparr v. Janet Ward, et. al.,*fn2 in which I adopted Judge Eisele's ruling from Lara Vineyard v. EWI, Inc. and Joe Whiteside.*fn3 In Lara Vineyard, Judge Eisele found that within ACRA, there is a distinction between the liability imposed upon "employers"*fn4 and upon "persons,"*fn5 which would allow individual liability for a retaliation claim but not a discrimination claim. This finding has not been addressed by either the Arkansas Supreme Court or the Eighth Circuit; therefore, I will stand pat and follow Sparr*fn6 once again. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of ...


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.