Fitzgerald v. Lincare Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:18-CV-412-TLS |
| Parties | SHANNON FITZGERALD, Plaintiff, v. LINCARE INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Lincare Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 32] and its Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits to Plaintiff's Response Brief [ECF No. 36]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits to Plaintiff's Response Brief is denied.
In the early 2010s, Plaintiff Shannon Fitzgerald was diagnosed with lupus. Pl.'s Dep. 55, ECF Nos. 33-11, 34-2. The Plaintiff would occasionally experience flareups of her condition that rendered her unable to work. Def.'s Ex. A-6 at 6, 14, ECF No. 33-8. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant Lincare Inc. as a customer service representative in August 2015. Answer ¶ 7, ECF No. 9. In October 2016 and April 2017 the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant Certifications of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition (Family and Medical Leave Act) (“FMLA Certifications”). Def.'s Ex. A-6 at 4-7 12-15.[1] Upon receipt of the FMLA Certifications the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff confirming that her request for intermittent time off was covered by the FMLA. Id. at 2, 9. On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff was given a Letter of Termination and was fired. Def.'s Ex. D-5, ECF No. 33-17. In the Letter of Termination, the Defendant cited the cause of termination as the Plaintiff's insubordination, her failure to discharge assigned job duties in a satisfactory, professional and/or efficient manner, her substandard workmanship, negligence, or inefficiency during the performance of her duties, and her failure to exhibit self-control to customers and/or fellow employees. Id.
After her termination, on October 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] in this Court, alleging one count of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On December 31, 2018, the Defendant filed its Answer [ECF No. 9]. After the conclusion of discovery, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgement [ECF No. 32]. The Plaintiff filed a Response [ECF No. 34], and the Defendant filed a Reply [ECF No. 35]. In addition to its Reply, the Defendant filed a Motion to Strike [ECF No. 36], asking the Court to strike certain exhibits the Plaintiff submitted with her Response. The Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion to Strike and the time to do so has passed.
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is the moment in litigation where the non-moving party is required to marshal and present the court with evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely to find in her favor. Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing AA Sales & Assocs., Inc. v. Coni-Seal, Inc., 550 F.3d 605, 613 (7th Cir. 2008)). “Summary judgment is the proverbial ‘put up or shut up' moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accepts its version of events.” Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 953 F.3d 969, 973 (7th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003)). Indeed, it is well established that “the non-moving party ‘may not rest upon mere allegations in the pleadings or upon conclusory statements in affidavits; it must go beyond the pleadings and support its contentions with proper documentary evidence.'” Id. at 972 (quoting Warsco v. Preferred Tech. Grp., 258 F.3d 557, 563 (7th Cir. 2001)).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must construe all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Yeatts v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., 940 F.3d 354, 358 (7th Cir. 2019). The court's role in deciding a motion for summary judgment Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). “A district court should deny a motion for summary judgment only when the non-moving party presents admissible evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact.” Luster v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 652 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. 5443 Suffield Terrace, 607 F.3d 504, 510 (7th Cir. 2010); Swearnigen-El v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 602 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2010)). Material facts are those that are outcome determinative under the applicable law. Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 427 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting Wainwright Bank & Tr. Co. v. Railroadmens Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 806 F.2d 146, 149 (7th Cir. 1986)). “Irrelevant or unnecessary facts do not deter summary judgment, even when in dispute.” Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 1099, 1104 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Clifton v. Schafer, 969 F.2d 278, 281 (7th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, a court is not “obliged to research and construct legal arguments for parties, especially when they are represented by counsel.” Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Judge v. Quinn, 612 F.3d 537, 557 (7th Cir. 2010)).
The Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Strike. The Court considers each motion in turn.
The Defendant's Motion to Strike [ECF No. 36] argues that Exhibits G [ECF No. 34-7], F [ECF No. 34-6], and H [ECF No. 34-8], which were submitted with the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 34], should be stricken. In general, “[a] party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). However, “[m]otions to strike are generally disfavored, ‘and usually only granted in circumstances where the contested evidence causes prejudice to the moving party.'” Smith v. Nexus RVs, LLC, 468 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1029 (N.D. Ind. 2020) (quoting Rodgers v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp., 167 F.Supp.3d 940, 948 (N.D. Ind. 2016); Kuntzman v. Wal-Mart, 673 F.Supp.2d 690, 695 (N.D. Ind. 2009)).
The Plaintiff represents that Exhibit G is an email she received from her manager, Tamara McClain, on June 8, 2017. The email indicates that “[f]or all call offs, you are required to contact both Trent and I, ” that “[a]nyone who is leaving early or coming in late for doctor appointments, MUST provide a MD note when they return, ” and that “[m]orning meetings will begin at 8:15am.” Pl.'s Ex. G, ECF No. 34-7. The email also requests that everyone “email me all of your planned vacation dates (even if it's approved in ADP) by Monday” and that everyone “respond back with your phone number.” Id.
The Plaintiff represents that Exhibit F is a performance review she received on October 26, 2016. The performance reviewed was issued by Robert Stubblefield, the Plaintiff's former manager. Pl.'s Ex. F, ECF No. 34-6. The Plaintiff received a 1.5 out of 4 for her attendance and an average rating of 2.8 out of 4. Id. The attendance section includes a handwritten note that states: Id.
The Defendant argues that neither exhibit is relevant to this case. Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that “[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable then it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action, ” Fed.R.Evid. 401, and Rule 402 provides that “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible, ” Fed.R.Evid. 402.
The Defendant's argument is confusing. On the one hand, the Defendant argues that the Court cannot consider the exhibits because they are irrelevant. On the other, the Defendant was the first to submit both exhibits, as they were included with the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Def.'s Ex. D-6, ECF No. 33-18; Def.'s Ex. A-4 at 1, ECF No. 33-6. Regardless, because the Court can distinguish which exhibits, affidavits, and statements may properly be considered when deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate and because motions to strike are generally disfavored, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Strike [ECF No. 36] as it relates to Exhibits G and F. The Court has noted the Defendant's objections and will consider the objections to the extent they arise in the Court's summary judgment analysis.
The Plaintiff represents that Exhibit H is a text message conversation between her and Trent McBride, the Defendant's area manager. The exhibit is a screenshot of several text messages. Pl.'s Ex. H, ECF No. 34-8. The screenshot indicates that one of the messages is from “Trent”; however, the screenshot does not include the sender's last name, phone number, or anything to confirm it was Mr. McBride sending the message. Id. Based on the screenshot it cannot be determined if the Plaintiff was the recipient of the message or the date the message was sent. See id.
The Defendant argues that Exhibit H should be stricken because it is unauthenticated and irrelevant. The Court agrees that nothing submitted by the Plaintiff serves to authenticate the document or confirm that it is,...
To continue reading
Request your trial