Opinion ID: 36456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ronment free of harassment and retaliation.

Text: Wright is black, aged fifty-two. Defendant, BL Development Corporation, doing business Following the complaint against Robinson as Grand Casino Tunica (“the Grand”), was and Ashford, Wright received an unfavorable her employer. Tyrus Robinson, Carlos Ash- performance evaluation affecting her wages ford, and Steve Gay were Wright’s managers and placing her on probation. These negative at The Grand and as such are co-defendants. actions were taken within a two-week period Wright began working at the Grand as a Slot of the complaint. Before the complaint, she Technician in 2001. She was the only female had not received any performance complaints and the oldest person in her group. or other disciplinary action. Wright sued, alleging title VII sexual har- Next, Terry Renault, the lead slot techniassment, discrimination on the basis of sex, re- cian manager, asked Wright whether she was taliation, and violations of the Age Discrim- having any problems. Wright again comination in Employment Act. She alleges that plained of the sexually charged hostile work she was performing a coin test with Ashford environment. Renault conducted no investigawhen Robinson bluntly stated that despite his tion and instead sought out negative informasmall statute, he had a “big dick.” Thereafter, tion regarding Wright. Ashford responded that “when you said that, Jane looked like she wanted to jump on top of Wright was given an ultimatum by Joy Criyou.” er of Human Resources, who stated that if Wright withdrew her complaints, Crier would Wright complained to Robinson the next discard the negative information Renault had day about the inexcusable behavior that had collected. Furthermore, Jerry Artiglierre, viceproduced a sexually charged hostile work en- president of slots, told Wright that he would vironment and left her feeling embarrassed and investigate her complaints, after which he told degraded. One week later, Wright learned Robinson to “fix the matter.” from Beth Daniels, Manager of Human Rela- tions, that someone else had filed a complaint Subsequently, Robinson told Wright that against Robinson and Ashford on behalf of she wo uld be placed on probation for ninety Wright. days, but she would also receive an increase in salary. Thereafter, Wright resigned and was The supervisors of Robinson and Ashford replaced by a male less than forty years of age. were repeatedly told about Robinson’s and Ashford’s inappropriate behavior but failed to II. take action to protect Wright and other female Wright consented to assignment to a magemployees. Specifically, no action was taken istrate judge, who dismissed the case with pre- against Robinson and Ashford to prevent them judice on February 9, 2004, for failure to profrom sexual harassment. Wright avers that at secute and for failure to obey an order that all times, the Grand either knew or reasonably granted defendants’ motion to compel Wright should have known of the hostile work envi- to respond to discovery requests and submit to 2 a deposition. Wright had failed to respond to Christian, 808 F.2d 1132, 1137 (5th Cir. discovery requests. In addition, her initial 1987). attorney, Caldwell, was forced to transfer the case to another lawyer because Caldwell had Under § 636(e)(4), in any case in which a been barred from practicing law. Thereafter, magistrate judge presides with the consent of Wright failed to respond to attempts to contact the parties, he may exercise the civil contempt and communicate with her made by Labovitz, authority of the district court. In addition, one her new attorney. Consequently, he resigned, of the sanctions authorized by FED. R. CIV. P. whereupon the magistrate judge found that 16(f), by reference to FED. R. CIV. P. 37, is Wright lost interest in the suit. Wright ap- dismissal. Callip v. Harris County Child pealed under FED. R. CIV. P. 73(c). Welfare Dep’t, 757 F.2d 1513, 1518 (5th Cir. 1985). The rule merely makes explicit a dis-