Arroyo v. Volvo Grp. N. Am., LLC
| Decision Date | 30 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-cv-6859 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | LUZMARIA ARROYO, Plaintiff, v. VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC, d/b/a VOLVO PARTS NORTH AMERICA, Defendant. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff LuzMaria Arroyo worked at Defendant Volvo Group North America, LLC (d/b/a Volvo Parts North America) from June 2005 until November 2011. In Plaintiff's third amended complaint, she alleges discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide reasonable accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. ("USERRA"), along with a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant has moved for summary judgment [75] on all counts. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment [75].
The Court has taken the relevant facts from the parties' Local Rule ("L.R.") 56.1 statements. Local Rule 56.1 requires a party moving for summary judgment to submit a statement of material facts as to which the movant contends there is no genuine issue and entitlesthe movant to judgment as a matter of law. As the Seventh Circuit has stressed, facts are to be set forth in Rule 56.1 statements, and it is not the role of the Court to parse the parties' exhibits to construct the facts. Judges are not "like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs." United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991). "Nor are they archaeologists searching for treasure." Jeralds ex rel. Jeralds v. Astrue, 2010 WL 4942161, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010) (citing DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999)). It simply is not the court's job to sift through the record to find evidence to support a party's claim. Davis v. Carter, 452 F.3d 686, 692 (7th Cir. 2006). Rather, it is "[a]n advocate's job * * * to make it easy for the court to rule in [her] client's favor * * *." Dal Pozzo v. Basic Machinery Co., Inc., 463 F.3d 609, 613 (7th Cir. 2006).
It is the function of the Court to review carefully statements of material facts and to eliminate from consideration any argument, conclusions, and assertions that are unsupported by the documented evidence of record offered in support of the statement. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Henry Smid Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 2006 WL 980740, *2 n.2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2006); Tibbetts v. RadioShack Corp., 2004 WL 2203418, at *16 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2004); Rosado v. Taylor, 324 F. Supp. 2d 917, 920 n.1 (N.D. Ind. 2004). Merely including facts in a responsive memorandum is insufficient to put issues before the Court. Midwest Imports, Ltd. v. Coval, 71 F.3d 1311, 1313 (7th Cir. 1995); Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 594 (N.D. Ill. 2000). In addition, Local Rule 56.1 requires that statements of facts contain allegations of material fact and that factual allegations be supported by admissible record evidence. See L.R. 56.1; Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 583-85 (N.D. Ill. 2000). Where a party improperly denies a statement of fact by failing to provide adequate or proper record support for the denial, the Court deems that statement of fact to be admitted.
In this case, some of Plaintiff's fact statements and responses to Defendant's fact statements contain legal conclusions or are irrelevant to the issues at hand. For instance, Plaintiff's first fact statement posits:
Within 2 months of the commencement of her employment and throughout her employment thereafter, Volvo * * * violated the terms of USERRA and the Americans with Disabilities Act, failed to take affirmative action to advance in employment LuzMaria Arroyo who was suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), subjected plaintiff to a hostile work environment and heightened scrutiny, considered terminating her during and after each deployment, leveled unwarranted discipline against her, and ultimately terminated her.
This one fact statement alone contains numerous legal conclusions and argument. The Court's role is to decide if there is a question of fact as to whether Defendant violated USERRA, the ADA, Title VII, or state law; the parties' role is to present the Court with facts (not legal conclusions) that support their position on the law. To the extent that either party's statements or responses contain legal conclusions or argument, are evasive, are irrelevant, or are not supported by evidence in the record, they will not be considered by the Court in ruling on the summary judgment motion.
Plaintiff LuzMaria Arroyo was employed as a material handler for Volvo at its Chicago Parts Distribution Center (the "Distribution Center") in Joliet, Illinois, from June 13, 2005 until she was fired on November 8, 2011. In Arroyo's employment application, she stated that she was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, and Volvo hired her as a material handler with that knowledge. Arroyo interviewed with Director of Distribution Keith Schroeder and Material Handling Supervisors Michael Temko and Patrick Dunn. As a material handler, Arroyo was responsible for retrieving ordered vehicle parts with a forklift and then packing those items toship to the customer on a timely basis. Beginning in January 2009, Arroyo worked the second shift, from 4:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.
During Arroyo's employment, no other employees at the Distribution Center were on active duty and subject to military orders. Throughout her employment, Volvo granted Arroyo leave for military activities, including military drills, training, and Yellow Ribbon events, as well as for two extended periods of deployment: April 17, 2006 to May 7, 2007, and April 15, 2009 to August 15, 2010. When Arroyo returned from her latest deployment to Iraq in April 2010, she used some accrued military vacation time and was released from active duty on August 15, 2010. Arroyo then took some additional time off before returning to work on September 27, 2010.1 Upon her return, Volvo offered Arroyo a voluntary severance package, which Volvo had previously offered to other material handlers while Arroyo was on leave in 2009.2 Arroyo declined the offer. In sum, Arroyo received more than 900 days of military leave during six and a half years of employment at Volvo.
Arroyo also took leave for weekend drills. Volvo modified Arroyo's work schedule to allow her to arrive to her shift two hours early and leave two hours early on Fridays prior to a weekend drill. Although Arroyo initially agreed to the modified work schedule, she later claimed that the arrangement was unsatisfactory because it did not give her enough time to get ready to drill. Through a mediation conducted by Colonel Tom Gorski of ESGR throughout March and April 2011, Volvo accommodated Arroyo's request by changing her Friday scheduleto 4:30 to 7:00 and allowed Arroyo to take 5.5 hours of excused military leave. Through the mediation, Volvo also resolved issues concerning Arroyo's health insurance coverage upon her return to work, catch-up 401(k) contributions, and paid military leave for Yellow Ribbon events.
Throughout these multiple tours of duty, weekend drills, and annual training, Keith Schroeder was able to find a replacement for Arroyo when she was otherwise engaged in service for her country. However, both Schroeder and Arroyo's supervisor, Michael Temko, questioned human resources and management about how to handle Arroyo's various leave requests, what rights (such as leave, travel, and rest time) were provided under USERRA, and what information Arroyo was required to provide to Volvo prior to or during requested leave time. Temko kept track of Arroyo's military schedule and her excused and unexcused absences.
All material handlers at the Distribution Center are subject to the Volvo's attendance policy. Pursuant to the policy, employees receive "occurrences"—either whole or fractional—for inexcusable absences or tardiness. For each occurrence, Volvo looks back both four weeks and six months from the date of the most recent occurrence to see if an employee has accrued enough occurrences to warrant a step in the progressive disciplinary process. Corrective action will be taken if an employee has two occurrences within a four week period or five occurrences within a six month period, calculated on a rolling fiscal year. The disciplinary steps under the attendance policy are: verbal warning, formal written warning, three-day suspension, and termination. Depending on how near an employee's occurrences are to one another, an employee may receive more than one disciplinary step at the same time, as the same occurrence can count for purposes of multiple disciplinary steps, given the look-back periods discussed above. If an employee has a six-month period with no occurrences, the employee's disciplinary "level" is reduced by one step.
The attendance policy has undergone periodic revision. In January 2008, the unwritten grace period that allowed employees to punch in up to two minutes after the beginning of their shifts was eliminated due to employee abuse. In January 2009, absences other than earned time off ("ETO")/vacation weeks and scheduled holidays no longer counted towards the rolling time period. Arroyo was present for and signed for receipt of an "Employee Infosession" in January 2009 concerning policy changes.
The attendance policy is administered jointly by Temko and Schroeder.3 Temko is responsible for documenting any occurrences for each employee on an Excel spreadsheet after reviewing the time punch records. Temko and Schroeder are then responsible for administering disciplinary steps under the policy. Arroyo was subject to the policy since the beginning of her employment with Volvo. Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial