Civil Action Number 3:08cv365.
RICHARD WILLIAMS, Senior District Judge
This matter is prior to the Court from the plaintiff’s movement to strike defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s movement to hit defendant’s respond to plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, while the defendant’s movement for summary judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The relevant facts for the many motions are the following. In July 2006, the plaintiff (“plaintiff” or “Brailey”) had been arrested on three costs: assault and battery pack, abduction and kidnapping, and larceny that is grand. On September 5, 2006, the plaintiff, that is African United states, ended up being employed because of the defendant (“defendant” or “Advance”) as a manager for the Hanover Center. Just before employing Brailey, Advance conducted a check that is background Brailey that came ultimately back “clean,” this is certainly, without beliefs or arrests. In line with the Advance America Employee Handbook, “[w]hen a employee that is current arrested for or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, he should alert their supervisor instantly.” During Brailey’s work, Advance shut the Hanover Center, leading to Brailey’s reassignment as an Assistant Manager during the Forest Hill Center. Subsequent for this transfer, Brailey contacted Judy Brown (“Brown”), Director of Human Resources for Advance, with questions regarding the presence of a written parking policy, provided he perceived this instruction as harassment that he had been instructed to move his car; Brailey says. Claiming Brailey’s concerns made her suspicious, Brown ran another check that is background Brailey on April 10, 2007. The defendant claims, this one revealed a September 14, 2006 misdemeanor conviction for assault and battery unlike the first check. On 11, 2007, the defendant fired Brailey, even though Brailey attempted to explain to Robert Ivison (“Ivison”) and Marsha Gregory (“Gregory”), the Advance employees present at the meeting wherein Brailey was fired, that the conviction had been dismissed (pursuant to his September 14, 2006 appeal thereof) april. In-may 2007, Brailey filed a Charge of Discrimination concerning their termination using the Equal Employment chance Commission (“EEOC”). Concomitantly, in 2007, Advance filed an appeal with the Virginia Employment Commission (“VEC”) regarding a VEC Deputy’s Determination that Brailey qualified for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for reasons not shown to constitute misconduct connected with work june. Pursuant to that particular appeal, the VEC carried out hearings that are telephonic Gregory, once the Advance agent, and Brailey in August and September of 2007. During the August 2007 hearing, Gregory made statements that are allegedly defamatory including that Brailey have been convicted of a felony.
Having received the right to sue page through the EEOC, Brailey filed the minute action in 2008 june. As there were numerous hearings and many motions by Brailey alleging untimely action by Advance, just those procedures strongly related the minute motions are detailed here. On 16, 2008, Brailey filed a motion for summary judgment december. On December 18, 2008, the Court referred all motions that are non-dispositive the Honorable usa Magistrate Judge Dennis W. Dohnal. On January 14, 2009, Judge Dohnal issued an order granting the plaintiff leave to file a second amended problem and giving the defendant until March 1, 2009 to answer Brailey’s movement for summary judgment. On February 18, 2009, Judge Dohnal issued an order extending the breakthrough due date to March 11 https://worldloans.online/installment-loans-in/, 2009 additionally the motion that is dispositive to March 20, 2009. On March 13, 2009, Brailey filed a supplement to his movement for summary judgment. On March 20, 2009, Advance filed its motion for summary judgment. On March 27, 2009, Advance filed its reaction to Brailey’s motion for summary judgment and Brailey filed their reaction to Advance’s motion for summary judgment, to which Advance filed an answer on 6, 2009 april.