Shaw v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-2513-DDC |
| Parties | SHANNA J. SHAW, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Currently before the court are a pair of pending motions from defendant T-Mobile USA. In November 2020, T-Mobile filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78), which it bolstered with a Memorandum in Support (Doc. 79). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 81). And T-Mobile replied (Doc. 83). This matter is fully briefed, and the court will rule it.
But, there's more. After T-Mobile replied to plaintiff's Response, plaintiff filed two additional briefs (Docs. 85, 86). According to T-Mobile's second pending motion—a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreplies to Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 87)—plaintiff's additional filings violate the governing rules of procedure. Seasons have changed since plaintiff's deadline for responding to the Motion to Strike expired, so that motion is unopposed.1 The court thus rules it with this Order, too.
As the following analysis explains, defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreplies to Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 87) is granted. The court also grants T-Mobile's Motionfor Summary Judgment (Doc. 78). Before the court explains why, the court introduces the facts of this case and the governing law.
This is an employment dispute. Plaintiff, a former T-Mobile employee, filed her original Complaint more than two years ago. Doc. 1 (Compl.). About a year later—in November 2019—plaintiff amended her complaint. Doc. 36 (Am. Compl.). According to her Amended Complaint, T-Mobile terminated her employment under circumstances that violate several federal laws, plus one Kansas state law.2 Plaintiff claims T-Mobile discriminated against her on the basis of her race, sex, and disability. Doc. 36 at 1 . Moreover, plaintiff alleges, T-Mobile terminated her employment because she was pregnant. Id. at 3 .
Nearer to the outset of this action, plaintiff requested appointed counsel (Doc. 4). United States Magistrate Judge Birzer denied her request but without prejudice to refiling (Doc. 5). After the initial scheduling conference, Judge Birzer reconsidered plaintiff's request for counsel. Doc. 15 at 2-3 (). Judge Birzer also set deadlines for the parties to exchange Rule 26 disclosures and ordered mediation. Id. at 2, 4.
Not long after, Judge Birzer appointed provisional counsel "for the limited purpose of advising and assisting Plaintiff in preparing and participating in mediation." Doc. 17 at 2. Alas, mediation failed, and the court thus permitted provisional counsel to withdraw. Docs. 27, 30. And, the court allowed plaintiff to file her Amended Complaint. See Doc. 35.
In November 2019, the court issued a Revised Scheduling Order (Doc. 34). The Order acknowledged that the parties "already have served their initial disclosures" but hadn't yet "had the opportunity to engage in meaningful discovery." Id. at 2. The court the set the deadline for discovery as May 15, 2020. Id. at 3, 13. And, the court set July 10, 2020 as the dispositive motion deadline. Id. at 8, 13. The Revised Scheduling Order was clear: "Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and D. Kan. Rule 56.1 is mandatory[,]" meaning that dispositive motions (i.e., motions for summary judgment) and "briefs that fail to comply with these rules may be rejected, resulting in summary denial of a motion or consideration of a properly supported motion as uncontested." Id. at 8. The court strongly encouraged the parties to consider stipulating to facts and legal issues not in dispute. Id.
On the same day the court entered its Revised Scheduling Order, plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint. Doc. 36 (Am. Compl.). T-Mobile filed its Answer on December 6, 2019 (Doc. 37). Also that same day, plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38). Defendant responded to oppose her motion (Doc. 42). Then, a waiting game commenced.
Several months later, plaintiff moved to amend her Complaint for a second time (Doc. 58). T-Mobile opposed her request (Doc. 59). Plaintiff replied (Doc. 63). The court stayed all deadlines pending the court's decision on plaintiff's request (Doc. 62). And on June 26, 2020, Judge Birzer issued her Report and Recommendation (Doc. 64), recommending that this court deny plaintiff's request for leave to file a second amended complaint on the basis that plaintiff'smotion was untimely, would unduly prejudice defendant, and would add futile claims. The court agreed, adopting Judge Birzer's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 67), and denying plaintiff's request for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Thus, the court turned to plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38). Concluding that plaintiff had failed to satisfy the summary judgment standard for summary judgment in her favor on any of her discrimination claims, the court denied plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 69 at 28 (citing Singh v. Cordle, 936 F.3d 1022, 1037 (10th Cir. 2019)). The court also concluded that, "even if she had [made out a prima facie case], she has not overcome her burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework to show as a matter of law that defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action was merely a pretext for race, gender, or disability discrimination." Id. (citing E.E.O.C. v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184, 1191 (10th Cir. 2000)). The court also denied plaintiff's request for summary judgment on her FLSA claim because the "materials and her purported facts and arguments do not demonstrate an FLSA violation without more explanation" and plaintiff hadn't "explain[ed] how her wages or defendant's reporting were inaccurate." Id. at 19.
Judge Birzer later entered an Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 71), and after that, a Pretrial Order (Doc. 77). Then, T-Mobile filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78), along with a Memorandum in Support (Doc. 79). Defendant also sent a Notice (Doc. 80) to plaintiff about its Motion for Summary Judgment, explaining important information about the processes she should follow if she wished to oppose it. Plaintiff responded to T-Mobile's motion to express her opposition (Doc. 81). Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 83). And then plaintiff filedtwo supplements in opposition (Docs. 85, 86), inducing T-Mobile's Motion to Strike them (Doc. 87).
These procedural details map this lawsuit's path to its present status. The court now turns to the undisputed facts governing T-Mobile's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78).
To determine the summary judgment facts, the court considers the facts asserted in T-Mobile's Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as the other materials submitted to the court. For instance, the court reviews plaintiff's filings, even though they fail to comply with the federal and local rules governing summary judgment. The court has construed plaintiff's asserted facts broadly under the permissive pro se standard. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) . But, even setting aside that plaintiff's Response fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our local rules, none of her asserted facts bear upon the motion's resolution. For instance, plaintiff asserts that she objects to all of T-Mobile's assertions. Doc. 81 at 2 (). At times, however, plaintiff also appears to concede some details while refuting others. Compare Doc. 81-1 at 2-3 (¶ 1) (), with Doc. 81-1 at 4 (¶ 7) (). Regardless, plaintiff's asserted facts either lack evidence to substantiate them, are incomprehensible, or do not alter this case's outcome. So, plaintiff's assertions either violate our local rules or simply are unhelpful to her opposition.3
The court also is mindful of several facts stipulated in the Pretrial Order. See Doc. 77 at 2. Alongside defendant's supported assertions which plaintiff hasn't controverted, the court determines, below, the following uncontroverted facts for purposes of summary judgment. If facts appeared genuinely controverted, the court would view them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing summary judgment. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) (). However, in this case, plaintiff hasn't presented a genuine controversy about any of the facts put forth by T-Mobile. Thus, the court accepts as uncontroverted all of T-Mobile's factual assertions, when supported by evidence, because plaintiff failed to controvert them. See D. Kan. Rule 56.1(b); Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002).
According to the Pretrial Order, the following facts are stipulated by both parties and therefore are undisputed. "Plaintiff is an African-American woman."4 Doc. 77 at 2. In August 2017, T-Mobile hired her to work in its Wichita call center as a full-time employee. Id. According to the company's Code of Conduct, T-Mobile is an equal opportunity employer, meaning it maintains a commitment to fair employment practices and maintaining a nondiscriminatory work environment—particularly with respect to race, sex, disability,...
To continue reading
Request your trial