O'Meara v. Mineta, Civil No. 02-220-P-H (D. Me. 10/2/2003), Civil No. 02-220-P-H.

• Decision Date: 02 October 2003
• Docket Number: Civil No. 02-220-P-H.
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER O'MEARA, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

Page 1

CHRISTOPHER O'MEARA, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.

Civil No. 02-220-P-H.

United States District Court, D. Maine.

October 2, 2003.

CHRISTOPHER OMEARA, CUMBERLAND CTR, ME, for PRO SE

HALSEY B. FRANK, PORTLAND, ME, for SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK, Magistrate Judge.

Pro se plaintiff, Christopher O'Meara, has filed suit against Norman Mineta, the United States Secretary of Transportation, alleging age and disability discrimination in his employment with the Federal Aviation Administration and unlawful retaliation for complaining of the same. The Secretary has moved for summary judgment on all claims. I RECOMMEND that the Court GRANT the motion.

THE RULE

By filing a motion for summary judgment against all of Mr. O'Meara's claims, the Secretary of Transportation is asserting two things: (1) that the facts of the case are not reasonably subject to dispute and (2) that the causes of action alleged in the complaint are not legally maintainable because of insufficient facts. Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Summary judgment is an accepted "means of determining whether a trial is actually required." Serapion v. Martinez, 119 F.3d 982, 987 (1st Cir. 1997). "Unless the party opposing a motion for summary judgment can identify a genuine issue as to a material fact, the motion may end the case." Triangle Trading Co. v. Robroy Indus., Inc., 200 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1999). In order to identify a genuine issue of material fact, the party opposing a summary judgment motion must set forth "specific facts, in suitable evidentiary form" that would be sufficient to support a verdict in his or her favor at trial. Morris v. Gov't Dev't Bank of P.R., 27 F.3d 746, 748 (1st Cir. 1994).

This District has prescribed a specific local rule that governs the manner in which parties must identify genuine issues of material fact. See D. Me. Loc. R. 56. Adherence to Local Rule 56 is mandatory, even for pro se litigants. Covillion v. Alsop, 145 F. Supp.2d 75, 77 (D. Me. 2001); Barstow v. Kennebec County Jail, 115 F. Supp.2d 3, 4 (D. Me. 2000). Pursuant to Local Rule 56, a party moving for summary judgment must present the facts as to which he contends there is no genuine issue to be tried in a statement of material facts, which must be filed in a document separate from the motion and its — usually incorporated — memorandum. Each fact is to be set forth in a separate paragraph and must be supported by a citation to a specific page or paragraph of a supporting document in the record, such as a witness's deposition transcript. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(b), (e). If the party against whom summary judgment is asserted intends to challenge whether or not one or more of the moving party's statements is undisputed, he or she must file an opposing statement of material facts that tracks the movant's statements, indicate whether the statements are qualified or denied, set forth the evidence that rebuts the movant's statement and properly cite the pages or paragraphs in the record that support the qualification or denial. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(c). In addition, when the movant's statement ignores the existence of facts that are material to those legal questions for which the non-movant bears the burden of proof, the party against whom the summary judgment motion is asserted must set forth such facts in a separate, titled section of additional facts (i.e., in the same document), which are typically set forth in paragraphs that are numbered consecutively to the movant's original paragraphs. Id. Finally, the movant may submit a reply statement of material facts, but only if a statement of additional material facts has been made by the party against whom summary judgment is asserted. The reply must be limited to admitting, qualifying or denying the statements set forth in the opponent's additional statements of material facts. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(d). In this manner, the parties should be able to present to the Court a picture of the evidence that would be presented and admitted during trial, so that the Court might determine whether there is a need for a fact finder, such as a jury, to evaluate conflicting evidence and resolve factual issues in favor of one party or the other. Triangle Trading Co., 200 F.3d at 2. Where it appears that there is no factual dispute for a fact finder to resolve or that the factual disputes are not material to the resolution of the claim or claims challenged in the motion, the Court must apply the law to the facts and enter judgment accordingly. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

In this case, the Secretary of Transportation has submitted with his motion for summary judgment a separate statement of 93 allegedly material facts. These statements appear, from the face of the document, to be properly supported by record citations. In response to both the Secretary's motion and statement of material facts, Mr. O'Meara submitted a single document captioned, "Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment." In it, he requests that the Secretary's motion be denied:

1. For all the reasons stated in the plaintiffs request for a jury trial[;]

2. Because of all of the information contained in the 142 exhibits that [have] been provided to the defendant[;] and 3. For all the information provided during the approximately sixteen hours of plaintiff s deposition[.]

(Docket No. 15.) Because this submission so clearly failed to comply with the Local Rule, I ordered it stricken, informing Mr. O'Meara that the Secretary's properly supported statements of fact would be deemed admitted "in the absence of a timely filed opposition to the motion." (Order, Docket No. 16.) The Order clearly referred Mr. O'Meara to the Local Rule. As of the date the Order was entered and filed, four days remained for Mr. O'Meara to either comply with the Local Rule or request an extension of time in which to do so. Mr. O'Meara declined to pursue either course.

THE FACTS

Although Mr. O'Meara failed to qualify or deny any of the Secretary's statements of material fact or to contest any of the Secretary's legal arguments by way of memorandum, the Court is still required to review the statement of material facts to determine whether the record truly supports each individual statement and to consider whether the law, as applied to those facts, actually warrants an entry of judgment in favor of the Secretary. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(e); Lopez v. Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 1510, 1517 (1st Cir. 1991) ("[B]efore granting an unopposed summary judgment motion, the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Winters v. FDIC, 812 F. Supp. 1, 2 (D. Me. 1992) ("It is well-established law in this district that Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 requires the Court to examine the merits of a motion for summary judgment even though a nonmoving party fails to object as required by [the] Local Rule[s]."). My review of the statement and the record materials cited therein reflects that the following factual statements should be credited.

Plaintiff Christopher O'Meara is currently 70 years old. (Def's Statement of Material Facts, Docket No. 14, ¶ 1.) In April of 1971, at 37 years of age, Mr. O'Meara started working for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a Navigation and Communications Aids Electronic Technician in Houlton, Maine. (Id., ¶ 2.) Roughly four years after starting with the FAA in Houlton, Mr. O'Meara transferred to Portland, Maine. (Id., ¶ 4.) Two years later, in 1977, the FAA added a layer of management to its New England Region. Mr. Mezzanotte became the Sector Field Office II Manager and Mr. O'Meara's first level supervisor. (Id., ¶ 5.) In 1980, Mr. Mezzanotte was involved in promoting Mr. O'Meara from the position of radar technician to that of Supervisory Electronics Technician Sector Field Unit Chief of the Radar/Data Unit in Portland. (Id., ¶ 6.) As of the date of that promotion, Mr. O'Meara was 47 years old. (Id., ¶ 7.) In his new supervisory position, Mr. O'Meara engaged in significantly less physical activity on the job. (Id., ¶ 8.) In 1981, Mr. Mezzanotte evaluated Mr. O'Meara's performance in his new position as "outstanding." (Id., ¶ 10.) In May 1984, when Mr. O'Meara was 49 years old, Mr. Mezzanotte was involved in temporarily promoting Mr. O'Meara to a position that increased his pay grade from 13 to 14. (Id., ¶¶ 12, 13.) In the FAA, employees are occasionally promoted or detailed on a temporary basis to positions of greater responsibility, which promotions are generally considered advantageous when the employee later applies for a permanent promotion. (Id., ¶ 9.)

On July 16, 1987, Mr. O'Meara broke his right leg and right elbow in a bicycling accident. (Id., ¶ 16.) As a result of this accident, Mr. O'Meara's range of motion in his right elbow is limited. He is unable to safely ride a road bike, to play and coach baseball, to split wood and to cross country ski. He also swims less frequently than he did before the accident and only in indoor pools; he considers it unsafe to hazard swimming in the ocean.¹ Finally, Mr. O'Meara experiences pain and discomfort if he has to drive for longer than one hour, although this difficulty is ameliorated by driving cars equipped with cruise control. (Id., ¶ 17.)

Following his injury, Mr. O'Meara was given a temporary promotion to Assistant Sector Manager by Mr. Mezzanotte and ...