Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_03-cv-05307/USCOURTS-arwd-5_03-cv-05307-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Castural Thompson
Plaintiff
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CASTURAL THOMPSON PLAINTIFF

V. Civil No. 03-5307

WAL-MART STORES, INC. DEFENDANT

O R D E R

On this 25th day of October 2005, there comes on for

consideration Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Award of Costs and

Fees and Brief in Support (Docs. #75-76). While the Court fully

considered these issues prior to imposing judgment in this case,

the Court has re-examined them here and finds that Defendant’s

Motion should be and hereby is DENIED.

It is within the discretion of the trial judge to allow or

disallow costs. Brisco-Wade v. Carnahan, 297 F.3d 781 (8 Cir. th

2002). In an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, it is

discretionary with the court whether to award a reasonable

attorney’s fee to a prevailing party. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

This case was never considered to be frivolous by anyone,

especially Wal-Mart. As evidenced by the affidavits and bill of

costs attached to Defendant’s Motion, several attorneys expended

many hours in defending the claim. Wal-Mart is correct in that the

Court found that the only direct testimony concerning any racial

overtone was from Plaintiff that Mike Huffaker requested that

Plaintiff handle all issues involving African-American employees.

However, a fact-finder, based upon the circumstances, timing, and

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 77 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

actions of Wal-Mart executives, could well have concluded that the

plaintiff was subject to racial discrimination.

The Court considered fees and costs in connection with its

order of October 7, 2005, and now has expended time and effort in

reconsidering its previous decision. The Court concludes that its

previous decision is fair to both Wal-Mart and Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion should be and

hereby is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 77 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>