Lamphear v. Potter
| Decision Date | 25 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 09-1640 (TLM) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Louis Lamphear Plaintiff, v. John Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service Defendant, |
Before the Court is defendant John Potter's, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, Motion for Summary Judgment [Rec. Doc. 48], plaintiff Louis Lamphear's Memorandum in Opposition thereto [Rec. Doc. 51], defendant's Reply Memorandum [Rec. Doc. 53] in further support of his summary judgment motion, defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's embedded Motion to Amend his complaint [Rec. Doc. 52], and plaintiff's Reply memorandum in further support of his Motion to Amend [Rec. Doc. 54]. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion to amend will be DENIED and defendant's motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that defendant, through his agents, servants and/or employees discriminated against him on the basis of a perceived mental disability, retaliated against him for filing a Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaint, created a hostile work environment, and intentionally caused him severe emotional distress. Plaintiff brings claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Title VII, and Connecticut State law.
Plaintiff, Louis Lamphear, is a maintenance department worker with the United States Postal Service ("USPS") at the Hartford Processing and Distribution Center. Am. Compl. at ¶ 5. Plaintiffasserts that he was subjected to ongoing harassment, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment based on a perceived mental disability and in retaliation for filing an EEO complaint. Id. On July 17, 2008, in response to complaints about plaintiff from seven managers and co-workers, plaintiff was called into a private meeting with a manager, David Letourneau. Id. at ¶¶6-7. Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to discrimination as the manager required him to attend a Employee Assistance Program ("EAP") due to a perceived mental condition. Id. Furthermore, plaintiff asserts he was discriminated against when management demoted him from a Level 9 to a Level 7 employee after he failed a required promotional exam. Id. at ¶ 11; Def. Ex. 4: Student Failure or Early Withdrawal Form. Plaintiff concedes that he failed the promotional exam but asserts that at least two other employees failed the exam but were allowed to remain at Level 9 positions. Am. Compl. at ¶ 11; Def. Ex. 4.
Plaintiff filed an EEO complaint on or about December 22, 2008. Am. Compl. at ¶18. On January 8 and June 21, 2009, plaintiff and co-worker Mike Ward had physical altercations relating to their shared workstation. Pl. Opp. at 15 [Rec. Doc. 51]. After management investigated the incidents, supervisors instructed both plaintiff and Ward that physical contact and invasion of personal space was not acceptable and that work area access was restricted to duty hours. Def. Ex. 19: Foley Letter. Also, the manager of the maintenance department sent out a directive to all employees that access to the shared area was restricted to one's work hours. Def. Ex. 18: Manager Directive. Furthermore, on April 22, 2009, plaintiff alleges that co-worker Ron Pelletier refused to sell him a t-shirt in direct retaliation for filing an EEO complaint. Pl. Opp. at 15 [Rec. Doc. 15]. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Hartford Post Office Veteran's Committee, and ultimately purchased a shirt. Pl. Ex. G: Lamphear Letter; Pl. Ex. B: Lamphear Aff. at ¶ 10. Lastly, onSeptember 14 and October 4, 2009, plaintiff's toolbox was spray-painted gray and his nameplate for his locker was covered with black marker, respectively. Management investigated the vandalism but the culprit was never identified. Def. Ex. 23: Sullivan Dep. at 92: 1-3; Def. Ex. 6: Foley Dep. at 83-84.
On November 12, 2009, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Rec. Doc. 5], which asserts the following causes of action: 1) violation of the ADA; 2) retaliation under Title VII; 3) hostile work environment under Title VII; and 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress under Connecticut State law. Defendant moves for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's causes of action [Rec. Doc. 48].
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record reflects 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). Such a determination is to be made "after construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor." Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2009).
Initially, the party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. When a party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if such evidence were uncontroverted at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). As to issues which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party must satisfy this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's claim, and ifthe moving party succeeds the burden shifts to the non-moving party to show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 322-23.
Once the burden shifts to the non-moving party, he must direct the attention of the court to evidence in the record and set forth specific facts sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial. Id. at 324. The non-moving party may not rest on mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings as a means of establishing a genuine issue worthy of trial, but must demonstrate by affidavit or other admissible evidence that there are genuine issues of material fact or law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159 (1970).
There is no genuine issue of material fact if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). If no issue of fact is presented and if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court is required to render the judgment prayed for. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
A civil action pursuant to the ADA cannot be maintained against the Postmaster General in his capacity as an employer. The ADA provides: "The term 'employer' does not include . . . the United States . . " 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(B)(I). Thus, the ADA specifically excludes the federal government, including the USPS, in its capacity as employer, from its coverage. Sarvis v. U.S., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26618, *5-6 (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2000); Ziemba v. Slater, 36 F. Supp. 2d 81, 86 (D.Conn. 1999); see Collins v. Soveriegn Bank, 482 F. Supp. 2d 235, 239 (D. Conn. 2007). As an ADA action cannot be maintained against the defendant, the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA claim will be granted.
In plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff moves, for the first time, to amend his complaint "in order to supplement it with a §504 [Rehabilitation Act] claim" in place of his ADA claim. Pl. Opp. at 5 [Rec. Doc. 51]. Plaintiff seeks permission to "replace one claim with another" in response to defendant's argument that the ADA does not apply to defendant as a federal employer. Pl. Reply at 3 [Rec. Doc. 54]. Plaintiff asserts that he has alleged acts by the defendant to support a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Pl. Opp. at 3 [Rec. Doc. 51]. Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint by the January 4, 2010 deadline to amend the pleadings set by the Court [Rec. Doc. 9], which was agreed to by the parties' in their joint Rule 26(f) report [Rec. Doc. 8].
After a scheduling report has been filed and the deadline to amend the pleadings has passed, the Second Circuit has required that the moving party demonstrate "good cause" to amend a pleading. Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 339 (2d Cir. 2000). Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party. Id. Generally, "a district court has discretion to deny leave [to amend] for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay or undue prejudice to the opposing party." Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 334 (2d Cir. 2009).
Based on the procedural history of this proceeding as set out hereinafter, the Court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to amend his complaint at this late juncture. Plaintiff filedhis original complaint [Rec. Doc. 1] on October 14, 2009, which included a Rehabilitation Act claim. On November 12, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint [Rec. Doc. 5], which dropped his Rehabilitation Act claim. On August 12, 2011, defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings [Rec. Doc. 28], asserting, inter alia, that the ADA does not apply to defendant as a matter of law since he was a federal employer. At this point, plaintiff did not seek to amend his complaint to add a Rehabilitation Claim although he was alerted to his ADA claim's inadequacies. Instead, plaintiff admitted "that the ADA carved out certain exceptions to liability and the defendant does in fact fall within the same" and simply sought to amend his complaint to take the factual allegations in the ADA claim and explicitly plead them in his Title VII claim instead.1 Pl. Opp. Mem. at 4-5 [Rec. Doc. 32]. Plaintiff did not attempt to amend his complaint by adding a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial