Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_02-cv-00379/USCOURTS-ared-5_02-cv-00379-0/pdf.json

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

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

PAMELA ALLEN PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 5:02CV00379GH

TOBACCO SUPERSTORE, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On June 17, 2005, , the Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on her race

discrimination and retaliation claims with regard to defendants’ failure to promote

her. The Court entered a lengthy Memorandum Opinion and Order setting forth

detailed findings of fact. Defendants now request a new trial or remittitur. They also

request that the Court amend its factual findings.

The Court need not belabor the arguments raised by defendants. The request

that the Court amend its findings in accordance with defendants’ wishes is without

merit. The Court heard the testimony and carefully reviewed the record before

issuing its Order. The Court found that defendants retaliated and discriminated

against plaintiff and is persuaded that there is absolutely no basis to amend the

findings or find that defendants are entitled to judgment based upon their proposed

amended findings. The findings of the Court are not contrary to the evidence and

the conclusions are not contrary to the applicable law. 

Defendants are not entitled to a new trial or remittitur of damages. The Court

has previously addressed the issues raised with regard to defendants’ request for a

new trial. The Court determined, after considering the evidence, that the damages

it awarded plaintiff were appropriate and there is no basis for the Court reconsidering

its decision. 

Accordingly, the motion to amend the findings and judgment of the Court or

Case 5:02-cv-00379-GH Document 181 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

alternatively, for new trial or remittitur is denied; the motion for leave to file a reply

is granted; the motion for stay of execution is granted. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2005.

___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:02-cv-00379-GH Document 181 Filed 08/12/05 Page 2 of 2