Career-Ending Injustice, Pt. 4

When Lorethie "Loe" Dunn went on FMLA in 2014, she never came back to her job as Campus Director at the Bastrop Campus, her last day was July 14. 2014. She retired on Oct. 1, 2014 and a retirement ceremony was held in her honor on November 14 of the same year. Dunn had not made plans to leave her career in the manner in which she did, as her goal was to work forty years on the job and see what would happen after that. During 2014, Dunn's relationship with the school's administrators had soured when it became apparent that their intentions were to see her terminated. Dunn filed an EEOC stating that complaint in October 2014 and received a reply from a Texas field office in July 2015, as there was a backlog of complaints that caused the delay in a response time. In august of 2015, Dunn received a "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" reply from the Acting District Director of the Houston, Texas field office from the EEOC stating that they were "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violation of any statues". Although Title VII of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and the Age Discrimination in employment Act gave Dunn the right to pursue her case under a 90-day window. Dunn decided to seek legal representation, but was unable to adequately find what she sought in Louisiana. She was able to enlist the aid of an African-American firm from Texas. Dunn sent the funds that was requested and on legal consultation, a complaint was filed at the U.S. Middle District Court. Dunn's case was assigned to U.S. District Judge James Brady, who unfortunately died on Dec. 9 2016, just days before a pre-trial hearing was scheduled for Dec. 14., had issued a partial decision for plaintiff and defendant. Dunn believes that had Brady lived, a decision whereby an agreement would have been reached by both parties. U.S. District Judge Shelley Dick would take over the case, but a pre-trial hearing was not held. Judge Dick in a judgement Dec. 14, ruled that "oral arguments were unnecessary". Dunn said that she was denied the opportunity for her voice to be heard. Dunn's attorney said that the chief judge "never gave his client an opportunity to present details", that the judge ruled so hastily without any communication from the plaintiff, is a denial of rights. The attorney also argued that Civil Procedures Code 63 was violated, and was not presented in its entirety by the chief judge reviewing this complaint. Dunn's objective, the attorney argued, was not to have the judge disqualified, recused, or negatively impacted. All that Dunn was requesting following the judgement, was that she receive the same fair treatment as the defendants. Next week the conclusion.