Summary
In Tefera v. City Ctr. Parking, No. CIV. 07-1413-ST, 2009 WL 1107704, at *16 (D. Or. Apr. 22, 2009), plaintiff alleged that his supervisor "discounted [his] ideas while praising similar ideas put forward by Caucasian employees, made him beg for vacation leave, continuously put off his requests for vacation leave and granted him leave on conditions less favorable than those given to Caucasian employees, ‘brushed off’ frequent complaints by him and other supervisors about [another employee's] discriminatory and abusive treatment of employees, and transferred his employees to underperforming Caucasian supervisors, one of whom was given a promotion [plaintiff] desired."
Summary of this case from Pringle v. WheelerOpinion
Civil No. 07-1413-ST.
April 22, 2009
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Stewart filed her Findings and Recommendation on February 20, 2009. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Defendant has filed timely objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review.
I find no error and, therefore, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation #48 of Magistrate Judge Stewart.
Accordingly, defendant City Center Parking's Motion for Summary Judgment (#31) is DENIED as to Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief alleging discrimination based on a denial of vacation leave and on a hostile work environment or constructive discharge, and as to the Sixth Claim for Relief based on a hostile work environment, and is GRANTED in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.