Rodgers v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp.

• Decision Date: 01 March 2016
• Docket Number: CAUSE NO. 2:12-CV-530 JD
• Citation: 167 F.Supp.3d 940,32 A.D. Cases 1094
• Parties: Latanya Rodgers, Plaintiff, v. Gary Community School Corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

167 F.Supp.3d 940

32 A.D. Cases 1094

Latanya Rodgers, Plaintiff,

v.Gary Community School Corporation, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 2:12-CV-530 JD

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division.

Signed March 1, 2016

Nicholas A. Snow, Jewell Harris, Jr., Harris Law Firm PC, Crown Point, IN, for Plaintiff.

Robert L. Lewis, Tracy A. Coleman, Robert L. Lewis & Associates, Gary, IN, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

JON E. DEGUILIO

, Judge, United States District Court

This matter is before the Court on the: (1) “Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed by Defendant, Gary Community School Corporation, on July 30, 2015 [DE 29]; and (2) “Objection and Motion to Strike Plaintiff S.J. Exhibit A & Plaintiff's S.J. Exhibit B,” filed by Defendant, Gary Community School Corporation, on September 16, 2015 [DE 37]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 29] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART . The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Counts II and III and the Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Counts II and III of Plaintiff's complaint. The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to the reasonable accommodation claim under the ADA in Count I, which remains pending. The Objection and Motion to Strike [DE 37] is DENIED .

Background

Plaintiff, Latanya Rodgers, has been employed as a custodian by Defendant, the Gary Community School Corporation (hereinafter “GCSC”), since 1995. In September 2011, Rodgers was sexually assaulted by a co-worker who grabbed and kissed her before she was able to escape. Rodgers claims she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder

as a result of the attack at work. She brings three claims in the current lawsuit: Count I for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ; Count II for retaliatory harassment and discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 ; and Count III for intentional infliction of emotional distress. GCSC has moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims.

Undisputed Facts

Rodgers is a custodian with GCSC [Rodgers Dep. at 102]. Her duties include cleaning her assigned area and securing it [Id. at 103]. Normally her work schedule is between either 2:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [Id. at 104]. Her supervisor is Mr. Kenneth Smith, manager over operations [Id. at 105].

On September 16, 2011, Rodgers was sexually assaulted by a co-worker while she was cleaning a restroom at the school [Comp. ¶ 1]. After the incident, Rodgers began to suffer panic attacks [Rodgers Dep. at 23]. The employee responsible for the attack was fired by GCSC based upon the incident [Id. ]. Rodgers was sued by the co-worker in small claims court, she counter sued, and received a judgment against him [Id. at 31].

Rodgers filed a workers' compensation claim and received approximately $17,000 for the claim [Rodgers Dep. at 101]. On February 22, 2012 (prior to her returning to work), Plaintiff's workers' compensation mental health treatment provider, Mary Mirro, drafted a letter [DE 32-1]. The letter states that “Ms. Rodgers has been experiencing Post Traumatic Stress Symptoms since the incident.” [Id. ] The mental health treatment provider made several recommendations: (1) there will always be proper lighting in the parking lot and around the school building and dumpster area; (2) Rodgers or any custodial staff member should never be left alone in the school building; (3) the custodial staff should work together as a team, for example, walk each other out to the parking lot at the end of the shift; and (4) no person should take the garbage out by themselves [DE 32-1]. According to Rodgers, her doctor wrote out the requested accommodations, and “submitted those to, you know, my building people.” [Rodgers Dep. at 79.] Rodgers testified during her deposition that no one from GCSC ever sat down with her and discussed the recommendations of Mirro dated February 20, 2012 [Id. at 174-75].

Dr. Michael Kovacich issued Rodgers a doctor's note stating she “has been under my care and has been released as of April 16, 2012.” [DE 30-5.] She felt forced to return to work after Rodgers received a phone call from Defendant's administrative personnel advising her that her benefits would be terminated if she did not return to work [Rodgers Dep. at 51-52]. On April 16, 2012, Rodgers returned to work and has been working full-time as a custodian until the present [Id. at 53].

On May 7, 2012, Rodgers' workers' compensation treatment provider drafted a second, more detailed letter to GCSC saying Rodgers was referred to her by Lynn Karfomenos, a medical case manager, nurse life care planner, and legal nurse consultant, and Mirro “concurred with the diagnosis that was made from the EAP counseling service, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

(PTSD).” [DE 32-2.] Mirro also stated in the letter that on January 20, 2012, Rodgers presented as being “anxious, withdrawn and fearful.” [Id. ] Mirro saw Rodgers twice during the week of April 30, 2012, and the provider reported that “[a]lthough she feels very frustrated and angry about the Gary School Corporation and how she has been treated, I believe that Ms. Rodgers is realizing that she is stronger than she thought. I encouraged her to return to work and do the best that she could. She agreed to do so.” [DE 32-2 at 2.]

Rodgers testified during her deposition that GCSC did not consistently accomplish Mirro's requested accommodations. Specifically, she said about the school parking lot that “they finally got some of the lights to work. They worked for a moment, but then they went out.” [Rodgers Dep. at 176.] Ultimately, Rodgers said there was not a resolution to the lighting issue [Id. at 177]. Rodgers also testified that the teamwork approach was never really implemented, and there was no additional training for the custodial staff [Id. at 178-79]. After she returned to work, Rodgers was put in a position where she was expected to take the garbage out by herself [Id. at 179].

Rodgers gave deposition testimony that after the assault on September 11, 2011, she was diagnosed by a GCSC doctor with high blood pressure

, anxiety, panic attacks, syncopal stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, which she claims affect her daily life [Rodgers Dep. at 87-99, 157-59, 166-67]. She claims her conditions often prevent her from being able to think clearly, to concentrate, they disrupt her sleep, and have affected her ability to interact and communicate normally with other people [Id. at 7, 163-64, 166-67]. Rodgers testified that she suffered an episode of stress-related syncope and high blood pressure shortly after she returned to work, and the episode resulted in Rodgers being transported to the hospital [Id. at 68-69, 184-85]. Rodgers was seen and treated in the emergency department on April 25, 2012, and was released with the direction that “she may return to work in 3 days.” [DE 30-3.]

Rodgers filed a charge of discrimination with the Gary Human Relations Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) dated May 23, 2012 [DE 30-1]. She received a right to sue notice from the EEOC on September 24, 2014 [Compl. ¶ 2]. The complaint also alleges that Rodgers was “denied a promotion or hiring to which she would have been entitled.” [Id. ¶ 18.]

Discussion

Summary judgment must be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(a)

. A genuine dispute of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Not every dispute between the parties makes summary judgment inappropriate; “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”

Id. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the deciding court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Ogden v. Atterholt , 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir.2010). “However, our favor toward the nonmoving party does not extend to drawing inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture.” Fitzgerald v. Santoro , 707 F.3d 725, 730 (7th Cir.2013) (citing Harper v. C.R. England, Inc. , 687 F.3d 297, 306 (7th Cir.2012) ).

A party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely on allegations or denials in her own pleading, but rather must “marshal and present the court with the evidence she contends will prove her case.” Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc. , 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir.2010)

. If the nonmoving party fails to establish the existence of an essential element on which he or she bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is proper. Massey v. Johnson , 457 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir.2006).

I. Motion to Strike

Preliminarily, the Court must address GCSC's objection and motion to strike Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Exhibit A (a letter from Mary Mirro, Plaintiff's workers' compensation mental health treatment provider, dated February 22, 2012), and Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Exhibit B (a letter from Mary Mirro dated May 7, 2012). GCSC argues the exhibits must be excluded because Rodgers should have disclosed the identity of an expert and an expert report, and because they are unauthenticated, contain hearsay, and have inconsistent and confusing dates.

Exhibit A is a letter from Mary Mirro that is dated February 22, 2012, and yet confusingly refers to “the incident” at school occurring “last September 2012.” [DE 32-1]. Plaintiff responds that Rodgers testified about this document during her deposition with enough specificity to render it admissible, and that the reference to the incident occurring in September 2012 “is clearly a...