Summary
noting that the fact that Plaintiffs' EEOC charges complained of failure to accommodate and mentioned the existence of Defendant's vaccine mandate would not prompt the EEOC to investigate claims for hostile work environment, harassment, or disparate treatment
Summary of this case from Culver v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-00329-KD-C
08-09-2023
PAUL DAVID BAUGH, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUSTAL USA, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated July 21, 2023 (Doc. 57) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. As such, it is ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts III-VI of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Doc. 50) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Title VII claims for disparate treatment religious discrimination (Count III), hostile work environment (Count IV), and harassment on religious grounds (Count V) is GRANTED because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to those claims.
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for invasion of privacy by wrongful intrusion upon their solitude or seclusion in violation of Alabama state law (Count VI) is DENIED because Plaintiffs stated a facially plausible claim for relief with respect to that claim.
DONE and ORDERED