Opinion
Case No. 3:19-cv-247
01-10-2020
RANDALL GLARDON, Plaintiff, v. SPEEDWAY, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR STAY
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 4) (the "Motion") filed by Defendants Speedway, LLC ("Speedway"), Karon Brock ("Brock") and Darin Hulsmeyer ("Hulsmeyer," and, collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff Randall Glardon ("Glardon") filed a brief in opposition to the Motion (Doc. 5) (the "Response"), and Defendants filed a Reply in support of the Motion (Doc. 6) (the "Reply").
In the briefing for the Motion, all the parties, as an alternative request if the Court does not agree with their respective arguments, request a stay pending the decision by the United States Supreme Court in two consolidated cases that are currently in front of that Court waiting decision following oral argument that took place on October 8, 2019. Specifically, in the Motion, "Defendants alternatively move that this Court issue an order staying this case pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton Cnty.," if the Court decides not to dismiss Glardon's Title VII claim with prejudice. (Doc. 4 at PAGEID # 58.) In his Response, Glardon states that he "joins Defendants' request that this Court issue an order staying this case pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court" in Altitude Express and Bostock, as an alternative request if the Court would not deny the Motion concerning his federal claim(s). (Doc. 5 at PAGEID # 76.)
The Court reads Glardon's claim(s) that arise under federal law as at least implicating alleged sexual orientation discrimination. (See Doc. 3; see also Doc. 5 at PAGEID # 78 (arguing that "Randall Glardon was targeted, harassed, ridiculed, discriminated against, and ultimately terminated due to his sexual orientation.").) The (now consolidated) Altitude Express and Bostock cases present the question of whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination "because of ... sex" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623, 2018 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2143, at *11 (question presented in Petition for Writ of Certiorari); Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., No. 17-1618, 2018 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2123, at *9 (same); Altitude Express, 139 S. Ct. 1599 (2019) (granting certiorari); Bostock, 139 S. Ct. 1599 (2019) (granting certiorari). Glardon's other claims are state law claims pending in this Court based on supplemental jurisdiction. (See Doc. 1 (Defendants' Notice of Removal) at PAGEID # 2.)
A federal district court's power to stay cases on its docket is a long-standing procedural tenant. Michael v. Ghee, 325 F. Supp. 2d 829, 831 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (relying on Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 81 L. Ed. 153, 57 S. Ct. 163 (1936) in granting contested motion to stay pending Supreme Court's final disposition of a separate case). Based on Landis, Michael, and a weighing of the factors stated in Michael (325 F. Supp. 2d at 831), the Court finds that a temporary stay of this case is warranted and appropriate. At this time, the Court does not make any other findings, and makes no decision, concerning the Motion.
For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS that the proceedings in this case are STAYED until such time as the United States Supreme Court comes to a final disposition of the Altitude Express and Bostock cases referenced above. The Court also ORDERS that one or more of the parties file a notice with this Court informing it of the Supreme Court's final disposition within fourteen (14) days of that final disposition.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, January 10, 2020.
s/Thomas M. Rose
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE