Summary
concluding that there is an independent duty to engage in the interactive process under both the ADA and the Oregon Act
Summary of this case from Austin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Opinion
06-CV-1404-JE.
July 14, 2008
KERRY M. L. SMITH, Smith Fjelstad, Gresham, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
ALAN M. LEE, FRANCIS T. BARNWELL, Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation (#51) on April 30, 2008, in which he recommended the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#19) as to Plaintiff's claim of discrimination based upon perceived disability and Plaintiff's claim that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against employees in violation of the FMLA and OFLA. The Magistrate Judge also recommended the Court deny Defendant's Motion as to the balance of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).
This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Findings and Recommendation (#51) and, therefore, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#19).
IT IS SO ORDERED.