Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kit B. Lee v. Sunrise Senior Living

December 21, 2010

KIT B. LEE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thompson, U.S.D.J.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION & ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon two submissions: Plaintiff Kit Lee's Letter [docket # 63] requesting that the Court vacate certain orders of the Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff's Letter [65] objecting to the Magistrate Judge's dismissal of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The Court has decided the matter upon consideration of the parties' written submissions, without holding oral argument, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons given below, both requests are denied, and the Magistrate Judge's orders are affirmed in all respects.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Chinese woman who claims she was wrongfully discharged on account of her national origin by the Defendant, Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., an assisted living home.*fn1

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that, in April 2008, a new supervisor, "Lampe," began working in Plaintiff's department. Within a month of being hired, Lampe transferred one Chinese woman to another department because she spoke poor English. Next, Lampe cut Plaintiff's service hours. Plaintiff complained to Lampe that service cuts should be made by seniority, not national origin.

Less than three weeks later, Plaintiff was written up for failing to sign a Code of Business Conduct. Plaintiff then complained to Lampe's supervisor. According to Plaintiff, Lampe retaliated by transferring Plaintiff to another department and filled her position with a Hispanic person.*fn2 At her new department, Plaintiff was issued a warning after some of the other employees complained about her. She claims that her new supervisor, Kristen Casullo, and Lampe were complicit in issuing the warning. Plaintiff requested a transfer to a third department, which was rejected, as was her subsequent request to be transferred back to her old department. Two months later, on September 26, 2008, Plaintiff's employment was terminated, allegedly for insubordination and severe misconduct, including workplace violence and threats. She claims that the purported justification for her firing was pretextual and that it has prevented her from finding other suitable employment.

Plaintiff brought suit on November 9, 2009, alleging defamation as well as unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

There are two letter requests before us. One is addressed to the Clerk of the Court, titled "Hardball litigation tactics -- A Threat The (sic) Integrity of The Court System," requesting that the Clerk vacate certain letter orders of the Magistrate Judge [63]. The second is captioned as an "Objection to Dismiss the Motion of Summary Judgment" [65]. Despite the captions, we believe that both requests are best read as appeals to the District Judge of various orders issued by Magistrate Judge Bongiovanni.

A magistrate judge's determination of a non-dispositive matter will be overturned only when the ruling was "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(1)(A). A ruling is contrary to law "if the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law," whereas a finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Marks v. Struble, 347 F. Supp. 2d 136, 149 (D.N.J. 2004).

B. Plaintiff's Discovery-related Complaints

In her letter to the clerk, Plaintiff claims that two of the Magistrate Judge's orders are contrary to law: an Order setting a discovery schedule [58], and an Order denying Plaintiff's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.