Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
8Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amira Jabbar v. Travel Services (D.P.R.) (Sept. 10, 2010)

Amira Jabbar v. Travel Services (D.P.R.) (Sept. 10, 2010)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 250|Likes:
Plaintiff bringing harassment claim argued that comments on company's Facebook page by company employees were not properly investigated. The court disagrees, and on reconsideration, finds that plaintiff presented no evidence that the Facebook account was an official company account and that upon being apprised of the comment, the company restricted employee access to Facebook.
Plaintiff bringing harassment claim argued that comments on company's Facebook page by company employees were not properly investigated. The court disagrees, and on reconsideration, finds that plaintiff presented no evidence that the Facebook account was an official company account and that upon being apprised of the comment, the company restricted employee access to Facebook.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Sep 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/19/2010

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICOKAREEMAH AMIRA JABBAR,Plaintiff v.TRAVEL SERVICES, INC. et al,DefendantsCIVIL 08-2408 (JA) OPINION AND ORDERThis matter is before the court on motion to alter or amend judgment filedby plaintiff, Kareemah Amira-Jabbar, on August 9, 2010. (Docket No. 57.)Plaintiff’s motion was opposed by the defendants, Travel Services, Inc., JoanneFerguson, John Ross, Miguel Hernández-Roses and Gilbert Anthony Linares, onAugust 30, 2010. (Docket No. 60.) For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’smotion is hereby DENIED.I. OVERVIEWPlaintiff moves for reconsideration of the opinion and order issued by thecourt on July 28, 2010. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Docket No. 55.) Accordingto plaintiff, by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants the courtincurred in manifest error inasmuch as: (1) inferences were not viewed in thelight most favorable to her; (2) the jury’s roll was usurped in determiningwhether she had complied with her burden in establishing a
 prima facie
case of 
Case 3:08-cv-02408-JA Document 61 Filed 09/10/10 Page 1 of 15
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728CIVIL 08-2408 (JA)2hostile work environment; (3) it was erroneously concluded that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions did not extend to former employees; (4) the constructivedischarge claim was not addressed when in fact she was constructivelydischarged from her employment with Travel Services, Inc. (“TSI”). (Id.)Defendants on the other hand argue that plaintiff’s motion must be deniedbecause no such errors were made. (Docket No. 60, at 2.) In essence, thedefendants claim that plaintiff’s dissertation is a rehash of her previousarguments in opposition to the various motions for summary judgment filed inthis case. (Id.)II. STANDARD OF REVIEWUnder Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) a party has twenty eight (28) days upon “entryof judgment, to file a motion seeking to alter or amend said judgment. The ruleitself does not specify on what grounds the relief sought may be granted, andcourts have ample discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny such amotion.” Colón v. Blades, ___ F. Supp. 2d ____, 2010 WL 3432602, * 1 (D.P.R.September 1, 2010) (quoting Candelario del Moral v. UBS Financial Services Inc.of Puerto Rico, ___ F. Supp. 2d ____, 2010 WL 1409433, * 2 (D.P.R. April 9,2010) (citing Venegas-Hernández v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 190 (1stCir.2004)). Nevertheless, courts only grant a Rule 59(e) motion when “the
Case 3:08-cv-02408-JA Document 61 Filed 09/10/10 Page 2 of 15
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728CIVIL 08-2408 (JA)3movant shows a manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence.” Rodríguez-Rivas v. Police Dept. of Puerto Rico, 699 F. Supp. 2d 397, 400 (D.P.R. 2010)(quoting Santiago-Sepulveda v. Esso Std. Oil Co. (P.R.), Inc., 638 F. Supp. 2d193, 197 (D.P.R. 2009) (citing Prescott v. Higgins, 538 F.3d 32, 45 (1st Cir.2008)). “Rule 59(e) may not, however, be used to raise arguments that couldand should have been presented before judgment was entered, nor to advancenew legal theories.” Cintrón v. Pavia Hato Rey Hosp., 598 F. Supp.2d 238, 241(D.P.R. 2009) (citing Bogosian v. Woloohojian Realty Corp., 323 F.3d 55, 72 (1stCir.2003)).III. ANALYSIS1. Reasonable InferencesPlaintiff argues that the court did not make all reasonable inferences in herfavor because it agreed with the defendants that she had failed to establishelements four, five and six of her
 prima facie
case of hostile work environment.(Docket No. 57, at 2.) According to plaintiff, she provided evidence that showedthat TSI knew or should have known of the harassment but that it failed toimplement prompt and appropriate action. (Id.) Specifically, plaintiff claims thatshe demonstrated that when Mrs. Ferguson, TSI’s Executive Vice-president, heardMr. Ross say that she belonged on the side of the road in Loiza cooking with her
Case 3:08-cv-02408-JA Document 61 Filed 09/10/10 Page 3 of 15

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
deltavega liked this
Jason Primuth liked this
legalassist liked this
mblazani liked this
genellera liked this
genellera liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->