Antoine-Tubbs v. Local 513, Air Transport Division

Decision Date22 September 1998
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A. 3:96-CV-0572-P.,CIV.A. 3:96-CV-0572-P.
PartiesTina ANTOINE-TUBBS Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 513, AIR TRANSPORT DIVISION, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, and American Airlines, Inc., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

Donald Hill, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Sanford R. Denison, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SOLIS, District Judge.

Before the court are:

1. Defendant American Airline's Motion for and Brief in Support of Summary Judgment, filed June 9, 1997:

2. Plaintiff's Memorandum Response to Defendant American Airline's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 7, 1997;

3. American's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to American's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 18, 1997;

4. American's Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence in Response to American's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 18, 1997;

5. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Additional Affidavits in Response to Defendant American Airline's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed July 14, 1997;

6. American's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Additional Affidavits in Response to American's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 16, 1997;

7. Plaintiff's reply to American's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Additional Affidavits, filed July 17, 1997;

8. American's Surreply to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Additional Affidavits in Response to American's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 28, 1997;

9. American's Post-Hearing Brief in Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Additional Affidavits, filed August, 18, 1997;

10. American's Supplemental Briefing in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 27, 1997;

11. Plaintiff's Supplemental Briefing in Opposition to Defendant, American Airline's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 30, 1997;

12. American's Reply to Plaintiff's Supplemental Briefing in Opposition to American's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 12, 1997;

13. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions including Striking Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief filed November 13, 1997;

14. American's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions filed November 26, 1997.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Tina Antoine-Tubbs ("Plaintiff" or "Tubbs"), filed this suit alleging employment discrimination and tort claims against Defendants, her union, Local 513, Air Transport Division, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and her employer, American Airlines, Inc. ("American"). By order of August 19, 1997, this court granted the union's motion for summary judgment with respect to two of plaintiff's claims, and plaintiff agreed to dismissal of the remaining claims against the union. Thus, the sole remaining defendant is American, and presently before the court is American's motion for summary judgment. Tubb's complaint against American alleges claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1978 (the Pregnancy Discrimination Act), and as further amended in 1991, based on sex. Plaintiff alleges she was treated less favorably than similarly situated men employed by American and was subjected to a hostile work environment. Tubbs also sues for race discrimination under Title VII and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Tubbs also alleges a complaint under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, and a complaint of intentional infliction of emotional distress under state common law.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary Judgment shall be rendered when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). All evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. [cite]. The party defending against a motion for summary judgment cannot defeat the motion unless he provides specific facts that show the case presents a genuine issue of material fact, such that a jury might return a verdict in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256-57, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Once the moving party has made an initial showing, the party opposing the motion must come forward with competent summary judgment evidence of the existence of a genuine fact issue. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Mere assertions of a factual dispute unsupported by probative evidence will not prevent summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Abbott v. Equity Group, Inc., 2 F.3d 613, 619 (5th Cir.1993). In other words, conclusory statements, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir.1996)(en banc). If the nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his case, and on which he bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

Finally, the court has no duty to search the record for triable issues. Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 403 (6th Cir.1992). The court need only rely on the portions of the submitted documents to which the nonmoving party directs the court. Id.

DISCUSSION

Tubbs began working for American on April 8, 1985. In late 1993, Tubbs discovered she was pregnant. At the time of her pregnancy, Tubbs held the position of a ground operations agent. In January 1994, plaintiff informed her supervisors of her pregnancy and of her doctor's instructions to not lift anything over ten (10) pounds. In May 1994, Tubbs requested lighter work duty due to her pregnancy. Tubbs alleges that she was told by supervisory personnel that in order to retain her position with American, she needed to be able to lift twenty-five (25) pounds of weight.

On Wednesday, May 18, 1994, plaintiff went to see her physician, Dr. Rhodesia LaStrap. While at her doctors on May 18, plaintiff complained that she had been suffering from a headache for about two weeks and that she had been experiencing increased stress because of problems related to her sister. Tubbs' blood pressure was very high, 170/110, and protein was present in her urine. Because these symptoms are common symptoms of a pregnancy disorder called preeclampsia, Dr. LaStrap ordered Tubbs not to go to work and to stay on bed rest until at least May 23, 1994. Dr. LaStrap saw Tubbs on May 19 and 20. On May 19, Tubbs' blood pressure was 160/110 and 150/100, and on May 20 her blood pressure was 152/98. As of May 20, Dr. LaStrap had not reached a conclusion as to whether Tubbs could return to work. Dr. LaStrap's office notes indicate that on May 20 Tubbs was advised to continue on strict bed rest until she was evaluated again on Monday May 23, 1994. On Monday, May 23, 1994, contrary to her doctor's directions, Tubbs reported for work at 5:30 a.m. because she had exhausted her paid sick leave. Shortly after arriving at work, Tubbs was told she needed to report to the lost-time control office. Tubbs waited for the union stewards before proceeding to the losttime control office at around 9:30 a.m. While at lost-time control, Kelly Parks, the losttime manager, and Tubbs had an argument. Tubbs alleges that Parks attacked her from the moment she walked in, told her he could send her home for being out of uniform, and shouted at her and used obscenities. Discussions followed as to whether Tubbs had previously submitted any medical restrictions to American, and whether Tubbs had to be cleared by American's medical department, because of her absences from work the previous week, before she could continue working. While in the lost-time office, Tubbs complained she was not feeling well and was taken to American's medical department. At the medical department, a nurse took Tubbs' blood pressure several times. The nurse then called Tubb's physician and informed her that Tubbs was at American's medical department, that Tubbs was very upset, had a severe headache, and her blood pressure on arrival had been 204/110, but had come down after ten minutes to 150/110. Tubbs was subsequently taken to her doctor's office where her blood pressure was 152/100. Tubbs was sent home and told to remain on bed rest and to return to her doctor's office the next day. On May 24, Tubbs' blood pressure was 160/102, which was reduced to 160/90 after resting on her left side. A urinalysis revealed protein in her urine at a level higher than the previous week. Tubbs denied headache, blurred vision, or abdominal pain at that time. Dr. LaStrap offered Tubbs the option of going to the hospital or going home and staying at bed rest until her appointment with a perinatologist the next day. Tubbs testified she went home from the doctor's office and took a nap. Tubbs awakened around 5:30 that afternoon, and around 6:00 o'clock began having severe back pain and started feeling the baby "balling up". Tubbs called her doctor around 10:00 p.m. and reported her symptoms. Tubbs was told to go directly to the hospital, and she reported to the hospital shortly after 10:00 p.m. on May 24. On arrival at the hospital, Tubbs' blood pressure was 211/106, and no heart beat was detected in the fetus. A cesarean section was performed at around 11:30 p.m., and the fetus was stillborn. The cause of death was placental abruption caused by severe preeclampsia. On an insurance claim submitted by Tubbs, Dr. LeStrap stated that the symptoms of preeclampsis first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Deily v. Waste Management of Allentown
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 23, 2000
    ...v. National Passenger Railroad Corp., 94 F.Supp.2d 186, 189 (D.Conn.1999); Antoine-Tubbs v. Local 513, Air Transport Division, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, 50 F.Supp.2d 601, 618 (N.D.Tx.1998), aff'd, 190 F.3d 537 (5th Cir.1999); Knussman v. State of Maryland, 16 F.Supp.2d 60......
  • Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 31, 2000
    ...Co., 70 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Lawson, 653 F.2d 299, 301-02 (7th Cir. 1981); Antoine-Tubbs v. Local 513, Air Transp. Div., 50 F. Supp.2d 601, 609 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (citing Moore v. Ashland Chem., Inc., 126 F.3d 679, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1997), rev'd en banc, 151 F.3d 269......
  • Local 100, Intern. Union v. Integrated Health, CIV.A. 99-581-C-M2.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • May 23, 2000
    ... ... § 2619. Antoine-Tubbs v. Local 513, Air Transport Division, Transport Workers Union ... of ... ...
1 books & journal articles
  • Expert Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Employment Evidence
    • April 1, 2022
    ...in this field of the medical profession.” Antoine-Tubbs v. Local 513, Air Transport Division, Transport Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 50 F. Supp.2d 601 (N.D. Tex. 1998), aff’d , 190 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 1999). Eighth Circuit Plaintiff sued her employer alleging gender and age discrimination in......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT