Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_04-cv-02402/USCOURTS-alnd-1_04-cv-02402-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA M. WELDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

04-AR-2402-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered the entire file in this action,

including the newly submitted evidence, together with the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and has reached an

independent conclusion that the Report and Recommendation is due to

be adopted and approved, with the following two clarifications

based on the new evidence: 

(1) As partial support for the finding, on page 16 of the Report

and Recommendation, that plaintiff, Melissa M. Weldon

(“Weldon”), was presumably qualified for the Apprentice

Lineman position in 2002, Judge Ott notes that “the plaintiff

testified that other males were given the opportunity to

complete their DOT physicals.” In its objections to the

Report and Recommendation, defendant Alabama Power Company

(“Alabama Power”) argues that Weldon’s testimony is

inadmissible hearsay that cannot be considered on a Rule 56

motion. The newly filed declaration of Alan Wagnon, Weldon’s

FILED

 2006 May-16 PM 03:56

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:04-cv-02402-WMA Document 36 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 3
2

union representative, provides an independent, non-hearsay

basis for the findings that male employees were granted the

opportunity to complete necessary certifications and Weldon

was not granted this same opportunity. 

(2) On page 24 of the Report and Recommendation, Judge Ott states

that “looking at the record in a light most favorable to the

plaintiff, it appears [Weldon] did complain again in 2003 on

the defendant’s annual survey.” In a footnote, Judge Ott

notes that, “[u]nfortunately, the parties have not included

copies of any of the annual surveys completed by plaintiff.”

The newly filed evidence includes the annual surveys,

including the 2003 annual survey in which Weldon answers yes

to the question of whether she was subjected to intimidation,

harassment, or discrimination based on race, sex, age, color,

religion, national origin, veteran’s status, or disability. 

With the above clarifications, the court hereby adopts and

approves the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge as

the findings and conclusions of the court. In accord with the

recommendation, the motion to strike will be granted in part and

denied in part and the motion for summary judgment will be denied.

An appropriate order will be entered. 

Case 1:04-cv-02402-WMA Document 36 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 3
3

DONE this 16 day of May, 2006. th

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-02402-WMA Document 36 Filed 05/16/06 Page 3 of 3