A former employee who filed a discrimination lawsuit against the Savannah River Site’s liquid waste management provider must respond to the contractor’s motion for dismissal by July 28, or the case will be thrown out. A federal judge set the deadline after attorneys for Jimmy Rouse missed an earlier response date this month.
In a lawsuit filed on April 24 in U.S. District Court of Columbia, S.C., Rouse alleged he was wrongfully terminated in February 2016 by Savannah River Remediation (SRR). Rouse, who is African-American, worked for SRR for 11 years as a carpenter. He said in the lawsuit that he was a quality employee who regularly received praise and pay increases for his work before he was fired.
The suit alleges that, in February 2016, Rouse contacted Savannah River Site security contractor Centerra after witnessing an illegal drug transaction in a parking lot at the Department of Energy facility. Centerra sent a K-9 unit to the scene and found a bag of marijuana in a car. The contractor arrested the owner of the vehicle, Rouse’s lawsuit says.
In the follow-up investigation, authorities determined that Rouse’s fingerprints were on the bag of marijuana, and that he failed a drug test. “Plaintiff was never provided with the results of any of his tests, and adamantly denied the accusations,” the complaint states, adding that Rouse’s termination is a “direct result of (SRR’s) continuous pattern of intentional discriminatory treatment.”
In the suit, Rouse is seeking reinstatement, back pay for the time he has missed at work, and payment of his attorney fees.
Savannah River Remediation attorneys responded to the suit on June 8. They claimed Rouse failed to articulate or identify an actionable cause of action based on those factual allegations. In addition, SRR said Rouse refused to take a polygraph test, and that further investigation showed him to be dishonest, which led to his termination. “Rouse’s allegations simply establish that he disagrees with SRR’s decision to terminate him for dishonesty,” according to the dismissal request.
Rouse had until July 10 to file a response against the request for dismissal. His legal team missed the date, according to an order signed on July 14 by Judge Shiva Hodges. “It appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action,” Hodges wrote. “Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
Calls made to Rouse were not returned by deadline.
