Opinion
Civil Action 23-12738
08-27-2024
EVELYN STOKES, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.
Stephen J. Murphy, III United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 7)
DAVID R. GRAND UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Evelyn Stokes (“Stokes”) brings this action against her former employer, Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“Blue Cross”), alleging claims for race discrimination/harassment and retaliation under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101, et seq., interference and retaliation in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. , and disability discrimination/harassment and retaliation in violation of both the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq. and Michigan's Person's with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.1101, et seq.
Stokes mistakenly cites 29 U.S.C. § 1211.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the case has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (ECF No. 3).
On November 21, 2023, Blue Cross filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Stokes' claims because they involve “issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” (ECF No. 7, PageID.48). Alternatively, Blue Cross asks the Court to stay the case pending the outcome of arbitration. (Id., PageID.52).
The matter has gone through exhaustive briefing by both parties. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17). The Court heard oral argument on May 22, 2024 (ECF No. 19), and August 27, 2024. For the detailed reasons stated on the record at both hearings, the Court RECOMMENDS that Blue Cross' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir.1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir.1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this magistrate judge. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the objections.