Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05016/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sexual Harassment)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

WILLIAM J. DOMINIC PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5016

DEVILBISS AIR POWER COMPANY DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 2 day of November, 2005, comes on to be nd

considered defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10). The

Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as

follows with respect thereto:

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the Arkansas Civil

Rights Act, 16-123-101, et seq., and Arkansas common law.

Plaintiff asserts claims of sexual harassment, retaliation,

wrongful discharge, and negligent hiring and supervision. 

2. Summary judgment is appropriate only if, when viewing the

facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and giving him

the benefit of all reasonable factual inferences, there is no

genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. See Leichihman v. Pickwick Int'l, 814

F.2d 1263, 1268 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 855 (1987).

Summary judgments should be sparingly used in employment

discrimination cases and then only in those rare instances where

there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one

conclusion. All the evidence must point one way and be susceptible

Case 5:05-cv-05016-JLH Document 20 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the nonmoving party. See Johnson v. Minnesota Historical Soc., 931 F.2d

1239, 1244 (8 Cir. 1991). th

3. Viewing the evidence under these exacting standards, the

Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact

precluding the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10)

is DENIED in all respects and this case will proceed to trial as

scheduled the week of November 28, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05016-JLH Document 20 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>