Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist. & Frederick Hill & Tanisha W. Smith

18 Citing cases

  1. Ellis v. Bd. of Trs.

    Civil Action 5:23-cv-96-DCB-ASH (S.D. Miss. Jul. 15, 2024)

    Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, (1985) (quoting Monell v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, n.55 (1978)). See also Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F.Supp.3d 792, 798 (S.D.Miss. 2015) (finding that a suit against a public official in his official capacity is equivalent to a suit against a governmental entity). Because Ellis's claims against Defendants in their official capacities are claims against the Board and the District, these claims are duplicative and should be dismissed as redundant. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Official Capacity Claims [ECF No. 20] is granted.

  2. Benitez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

    3:18-cv-00491 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 28, 2022)   Cited 13 times
    Listing and summarizing cases where supervisors have minor conflicts with plaintiffs alleging retaliation

    And yet a review of the case law suggests that courts allow a Title VII defendant to assert these two positions alternatively. See, e.g., Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F.Supp.3d 792, 799-800 (S.D.Miss. 2015). For example, in Embrico v. U.S. Steel Corp., 404 F.Supp.2d 802 (E.D. Pa. 2005), aff'd, 245 Fed.Appx. 184 (3d Cir. 2007), the defendant, U.S. Steel, moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's age discrimination claim:

  3. Benitez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

    3:18-cv-00491 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 5, 2022)   Cited 8 times

    And yet a review of the case law suggests that courts allow a Title VII defendant to assert these two positions alternatively. See, e.g., Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F.Supp.3d 792, 799-800 (S.D.Miss. 2015). For example, in Embrico v. U.S. Steel Corp., 404 F.Supp.2d 802 (E.D. Pa. 2005), aff'd, 245 Fed.Appx. 184 (3d Cir. 2007), the defendant, U.S. Steel, moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's age discrimination claim:

  4. Thomas v. City of Laurel

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-112-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Mar. 25, 2021)   Cited 4 times
    Stating that the MTCA does not bar the personal liability of an individual police officer for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery

    Mississippi's courts have held that tort claims falling within these excluded categories are outside the scope of the MTCA, Zumwalt v. Jones County Bd. of Supervisors, 19 So. 3d 672, 688 (Miss. 2009), and, therefore, the notice requirement does not apply to them. Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F. Supp. 3d 792, 804 (S.D. Miss. 2015). Therefore, the notice requirement does not apply to Plaintiffs' claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery.

  5. Conway v. Biloxi Pub. Sch. Dist.

    CAUSE NO. 1:20-cv-107-LG-MTP (S.D. Miss. Dec. 17, 2020)

    This Joinder should be stricken, as qualified immunity does not apply to the School District. "As a municipality, the School District 'does not enjoy immunity from suit, either absolute or qualified, under § 1983.'" Idom v. Natchez-Adams School Dist., 115 F. Supp. 3d 792, 797 (S.D. Miss. 2015) (citing Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999)). In addition, Local Rule 7(b) provides: "Any written communication with the court that is intended to be an application for relief or other action by the court must be presented by a motion in the form prescribed by this Rule."

  6. D.M. v. Forrest Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-48-KS-JCG (S.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Accordingly, Plaintiffs would not be required to comply with the MTCA's notice provision with respect to such a claim.See Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F. Supp. 3d 792, 804 (S.D. Miss. 2015) (notice requirement does not apply to tort claims outside the scope of the MTCA). D. IIED

  7. Robertson v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr.

    Civil No. 3:18cv546-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Mar. 23, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff relies on Idom v. Natchez-Adams School District, and contends that in that case the plaintiff presented a prima facie case for adverse employment action where she was reprimanded, received unannounced visits from superiors, was accused of unprofessionalism, was "spoken down to" by the administration, and was offered employment under less favorable terms. Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F. Supp. 3d 792, 798 (S.D. Miss. 2015). However, the Court "must be able to point to controlling authority—or a robust consensus of persuasive authority—that defines the contours of the right in question with a high degree of particularity," to find that Plaintiff's right to be free from the conduct described above was clearly established at the time, or that such action would support a constructive discharge claim.

  8. Jones v. Browning

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-118-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    The notice requirement does not apply to tort claims falling outside the scope of the MTCA. Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F. Supp. 3d 792, 804 (S.D. Miss. 2015). Therefore, it does not apply to Plaintiff's slander claim.

  9. Barnett v. City of Laurel

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-92-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Nov. 8, 2019)

    Therefore, the Court grants the City's motion as to Plaintiff's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. See, e.g. Seibert v. Jackson County, 2015 WL 4647927, at *11 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 5, 2015); Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F. Supp. 3d 792, 804 (S.D. Miss. 2015); Ducksworth v. Rook, 2015 WL 737574, at *6 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 20, 2015). See, e.g. Brown v. Wilkinson County Sheriff's Dept., 2017 WL 1479428, at *8 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 24, 2017); Ducksworth, 2015 WL 737574 at *6; Holloway v. Lamar County, 2015 WL 9094531, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 16, 2015).

  10. Burroughs v. City of Laurel

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-48-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sep. 5, 2019)   Cited 8 times

    Mississippi's courts have held that tort claims falling within these excluded categories are outside the scope of the MTCA, Zumwalt v. Jones County Bd. of Supervisors, 19 So. 3d 672, 688 (Miss. 2009), and, therefore, the notice requirement does not apply to them. Idom v. Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist., 115 F. Supp. 3d 792, 804 (S.D. Miss. 2015). Therefore, Plaintiff's defamation claim falls outside the scope of the MTCA, and the notice requirement does not apply.