Opinion ID: 152316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Duty to Expedite

Text: We address one final matter. Collazo contends that by refusing to refer the case to a magistrate judge and failing to otherwise expedite the case, the district court violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5), which states that a district judge assigned to a Title VII case has a duty ... to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. Collazo points out that the motion for summary judgment was fully briefed and pending as of August 2006. In February 2007, the district court denied Collazo's motion to refer the case to a magistrate judge. However, the court did not rule on Bristol-Myers' motion for summary judgment until March 2009. In light of our conclusion that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Bristol-Myers on Collazo's Title VII and related state law claims, we need not address this alternative claim of error. However, we remind the court upon remand of its duty to cause the case to be in every way expedited. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5).