Stitz v. City of Eureka Springs

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WATERS, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, for employment discrimination on the basis of gender and for retaliation. Currently before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs response thereto. The court finds, for the reasons set forth below, that defendant’s motion should be granted. Accordingly, plaintiffs case will be dismissed without prejudice.

I. FACTS

In 1979, plaintiff was hired by defendant as an animal control officer. She also worked for…