Tegley v. Lancaster Cnty.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | 4:13CV3104 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
| Parties | AMY TEGLEY, Plaintiff, v. LANCASTER COUNTY, NEBRASKA, Defendant. |
Amy Tegley was separated from her employment with Lancaster County, Nebraska, in December 2011 after the County Treasurer determined that migraine headaches prevented Tegley from performing the essential functions of her job as a motor vehicle clerk. Tegley contends in this action that she was discriminated against on the basis of disability and denied reasonable accommodations in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and that she was actually discharged for exercising her rights under the ADA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The County has moved for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted and judgment will be entered dismissing all claims with prejudice.
Our local rules provide that "[t]he moving party must include in the brief in support of the summary judgment motion a separate statement of material facts about which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried and that entitles the moving party to judgment as a matter of law." NECivR 56.1(a)(1). "The statement of facts should consist of short numbered paragraphs, each containing pinpointreferences to affidavits, pleadings, discovery responses, deposition testimony (by page and line), or other materials that support the material facts stated in the paragraph." NECivR 56.1(a)(2) (emphasis in original). The party opposing a summary judgment motion must then include in its brief a concise response to the moving party's statement of material facts. "Each material fact in the response must be set forth in a separate numbered paragraph, must include pinpoint references to affidavits, pleadings, discovery responses, deposition testimony (by page and line), or other materials upon which the opposing party relies, and, if applicable, must state the number of the paragraph in the movant's statement of material facts that is disputed." NECivR 56.1(b)(1). "Properly referenced material facts in the movant's statement are considered admitted unless controverted in the opposing party's response." Id. (emphasis in original).
Each party has generally complied with these briefing requirements. For the most part, Tegley does not dispute the County's statement of material facts. Similarly, the County does not dispute most of the additional facts which Tegley has set out in her opposing brief, although it does not concede their materiality.1
Based on the parties' respective statements, and a review of the referenced exhibits, the court finds there is no genuine dispute as the following facts:2
1. Tegley was hired to work as a Motor Vehicle Clerk in the Lancaster County, Nebraska Treasurer's Office in 2006.
2. Tegley only worked as a Motor Vehicle Clerk during her time employed by The County.
3. Tegley's job duties as a Motor Vehicle Clerk included public contact3 and reviewing paperwork submitted to the Treasurer's Office by car dealers or car buyers and verifying that the paperwork submitted contained the accurate tax information and entering that information into a computer.
4. Tegley was also expected to process the registrations and license plates for motor vehicles, collect the appropriate taxes for those vehicles, and if necessary handle the cash or credit card transaction.
5. All of these tasks are performed while the clerk is either standing or sitting at a service counter while dealing face-to-face with a customer at the County Treasurer's Office locations.
6. Tegley began experiencing migraine headaches while she was in high school.
7. Until 2007 or 2008, Tegley had success in managing her migraines through the use of over-the-counter Excedrin.
8. Beginning in 2007 or 2008, the nature of the headaches changed to the extent that Tegley would lose her vision, her arms would become numb and she wouldexperience severe nausea for a period of time between 12 hours and as much as four days.
8a. Tegley's lack of vision was in the left eye; Tegley's arm numbness did not prohibit her from using her arm, and there was no worry about dropping anything.
9. These migraines tended to last two to three days on average and "couldn't be managed at all."4
10. Typically the post-2007 migraines would begin in the middle of the night and cause Tegley to vomit and return to bed until the migraines would subside.
11. During the time in which Tegley suffered from the debilitating migraines, her doctors prescribed "anything and everything" to treat the migraines.
12. In addition to medications, Tegley tried chiropractic care, massage and allergy treatments to attempt to prevent or treat the migraines.
13. The medications "sometimes" provided relief,5 but none of the other treatments worked; near the end of her employment with The County, Tegley began taking a new medication which "after four months did seem to break the cycle."
13a. Tegley had difficulty getting someone assigned to cover her station so she could go in the back for a few minutes to take her medication. 13b. Not all of Tegley's migraines from 2007 to 2011 were "severe."
13c. Tegley was able to work if she was not having a severe migraine.
14. In 2009, Tegley was taking intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 because of her migraines, which at the time she considered to be a serious health condition that rendered her unable to perform the essential functions of her position.
15. In March 2011, Tegley requested to move her service window to a location underneath a skylight window so that she would be removed from the "backroom drama" and to see if the natural light would help her migraines.
15a. Tegley thought being under the skylight would help with her headaches because Fluorescent lighting has been statistically proven to cause tension headaches and migraines. Tegley believed it would be less stress on the eyes.
15b. Tegley requested the seating under the skylights because her doctor had suggested no fluorescent lighting, and the only option to attempt to achieve that would be the skylight.
15c. The skylights are big enough to cover two workstations and provide the only direct overhead lighting for those stations.
15d. Tegley did research on her own and discussed with her doctor various medical and other alternatives to mange and reduce her headaches.
16. Tegley was assigned to that location for about a month before she was inexplicably reassigned. Tegley could not determine whether the location under the skylight provided any relief to her headaches in that amount of time. 16a. Tegley did not feel that she was placed under the skylight long enough to give it a fair trial.
17. Upon being moved from the skylight position, Tegley did not voice any objection to the office scheduler.
17a. Tegley did not feel that she was going to receive any cooperation from the management following her removal from the skylight station.
17b. Tegley did not feel that she had been unreasonable in asking to be placed under the skylight; she had been trying to work with the County at that time to develop a solution.
17c. Kathleen (Kacey) Walkowiak, was in charge of the seating assignments at the time Tegley was removed from skylight window.
17d. Tegley did not request to be put back under the skylight because she felt that Ms. Walkowiak did not respect the clerk's opinions and that as was typical for the office that Ms. Ross would just defer to Ms. Walkowiak on this matter as she routinely did on matters regarding clerks. Tegley did not wish to jeopardize her job.
17e. Windows were assigned based on competency, quickness and whether or not your supervisor liked you, but mostly on how much Mr. Walkowiak liked the person she was assigning and Tegley believed that Ms. Walkowiak did not like her.
17f. Matthew Hollins, Jerad Higley and Jody Groff, nondisabled employees, were allowed to remain in permanent stations and not be regularly moved.
18. In April 2011, Tegley was reprimanded for being absent without leave for taking a day off of work when she was experiencing the stomach flu. 18a. In March 2011, Andrew Stebbing approved a new sick leave policy for the County Treasurer's Office which included semiannual monitoring of sick leave usage of all employees.
18b. Stebbing took office as County Treasurer in January 2011.6
18c. The County did not fully apply the sick leave policy to Tegley and her sick leave was not reviewed "because her sick leave use was almost entirely FMLA leave."
18d. Despite not reviewing Tegley's sick leave per the new policy, Stebbing met with Tegley "to discuss her attendance issues" on or about March 3, 2011.
18e. Stebbing met with Tegley "to discuss her attendance issues while Tegley was on intermittent FMLA leave.
18f. Although Tegley's sick leave had not been reviewed "because her sick leave use was almost entirely FMLA leave," Tegley was disciplined for sick leave use under the new policy enacted.
19. On that day in April 2011, Tegley was absent without leave because she had used her available paid sick leave earlier in the pay period when she experienced a migraine.
19a. Tegley's migraine was an absence covered by the FMLA.
19b. Tegley was required to use her available sick leave for covered absences and was not allowed to reserve sick leave for non-FMLA qualifying absences per the County FMLA policy.
20. On or about August 1, 2011, Tegley received her annual evaluation for the year 2011 and received the highest score she had ever received on an annual evaluation during her employment with the County.
20a. At the time Stebbing wrote on Tegley's evaluation regarding her attendance, Tegley was approved for FMLA leave, and Tegley's absences were largely related to her FMLA usage.
20b. Throughout Tegley's performance she was always rated sufficiently at a minimum.
21. Tegley received a merit pay increase as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial