From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blessing v. Namco, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Sep 1, 2011
No. 2:10-cv-408-DBH (D. Me. Sep. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:10-cv-408-DBH

09-01-2011

TROY BLESSING and CHRISTENE BRADBURY, PLAINTIFFS v. NAMCO, LLC., DEFENDANT


REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56

The primary issues on the defendant's summary judgment motion are:

1. The applicability of the Maine Whistleblower's Act, 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 831-840, given that the agency in question was OSHA. The plaintiff Blessing also claims that he reported violations to his employer, the defendant, and suffered adverse action as a result. Bard v. Bath Iron Works, 590 A.2d 152, 156 (Me. 1991).

2. Whether the plaintiff Bradbury can meet the prima case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and can rebut the defendant's claimed legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the action.

Each party contemplates no more than 40 items in their respective factual statements. It appears that many of the "historical" facts are undisputed, and that the primary disputes will be over whether there is enough for a factfinder to draw an inference of illegitimate motive or pretext. I therefore encouraged the lawyers to attempt to stipulate as many facts as possible and to focus their motion practice on what is left. The defendant shall file its motion by October 17, 2011. The plaintiffs shall respond by November 7. Any defendant's reply shall be filed by November 14.

SO ORDERED.

D. BROCK HORNBY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Blessing v. Namco, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Sep 1, 2011
No. 2:10-cv-408-DBH (D. Me. Sep. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Blessing v. Namco, LLC

Case Details

Full title:TROY BLESSING and CHRISTENE BRADBURY, PLAINTIFFS v. NAMCO, LLC., DEFENDANT

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Date published: Sep 1, 2011

Citations

No. 2:10-cv-408-DBH (D. Me. Sep. 1, 2011)