Valtierra v. Medtronic Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 February 2017
• Docket Number: No. CV–15–865–PHX–SMM,CV–15–865–PHX–SMM
• Citation: 232 F.Supp.3d 1117
• Parties: Jose VALTIERRA, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

232 F.Supp.3d 1117

Jose VALTIERRA, Plaintiff,

v.MEDTRONIC INC., Defendant.

No. CV–15–865–PHX–SMM

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

Signed February 3, 2017

Jessica Elizabeth Miller, Michael David Zoldan, Zoldan Law Group PLLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiff.

Barry Harris Uhrman, Robert Shawn Oller, Littler Mendelson PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

Stephen M. McNamee, Senior United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendant Medtronic Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jose Valtierra's ("Valtierra") remaining claims: his claim of interference with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), and his claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). (Doc. 53.) The motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 54, 57–59, 62, 66–67.)

The Court will grant Medtronic's motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Medtronic is a company that specializes in medical devices for cardiac, neurological, spinal, diabetes

and vascular conditions. (Doc. 54 at 2.) The company's Tempe, Arizona location develops and manufactures full custom integrated circuits. (Id. ) Its Facilities Organization division employs and manages technicians who maintain and repair facility equipment. (Id. ) Technicians work on air conditioners, boilers, fan coils, cooling towers, and other pieces of equipment. (Id. ) The physical job requirements include climbing ladders, walking, bending, stooping, kneeling, and carrying up to 50 pounds. (Id. )

Medtronic hired Valtierra at its Tempe location in November 2004 as a Facilities Maintenance Technician. (Id. at 1.) During his employment, Valtierra worked his way up to Facilities Specialist. (Doc. 62 at 1.) Throughout his employment, Valtierra was supervised by Wayne Duke, the Facilities Maintenance Supervisor. (Docs. 54 at 1, 62 at 2.) Valtierra testified that he weighed at least 300 pounds when Medtronic hired him in 2004. (Doc. 54 at 4.)

Preventative Maintenance ("PMs") are regularly set inspections, scheduled maintenance, and repair performed by technicians on every piece of equipment at Medtronic. (Docs. 54 at 2, 62 at 2.) Medtronic's PMs are generated from product specifications and maintenance practices for the products, while its software system, Mainsaver, establishes the work that needs to be completed. (Doc. 54 at 2.) Technicians are responsible for performing the required maintenance and making appropriate entries of completed PMs in Mainsaver. (Id. at 3.) When a PM task is completed, it is closed out in Mainsaver. (Doc. 62 at 3.) In Mainsaver, the maintenance activity to be documented includes: date performed, tasks performed, and name of the person who performed the task. (Doc. 54 at 3.)

Technicians generally are assigned the same PMs so that they can become familiar with the equipment. (Doc. 62 at 3.) The technicians are assigned PMs by their supervisor, Wayne Duke. (Id. at 2.) Duke has the authority to delegate or change PM assignments between technicians. (Id. ) Former employee Rick Majors trained most of the Facilities Maintenance technicians, including Valtierra. (Id. at 3.) He was described as the go-to maintenance person by Supervisor Duke and several technicians. (Id. )

In August 2013 to December 2013, Valtierra requested and was granted FMLA leave because of his weight, which he stated was causing him joint and knee pain. (Doc. 54 at 3–4.) Matrix, a third party, processes FMLA leave requests for Medtronic employees. (Id. at 3.) Matrix reviews the forms and information completed by the employee, contacts the employee's healthcare providers, and tracks employee FMLA hours. (Id. ) Matrix approves or disapproves any FMLA leave for Medtronic employees. (Id. )

After taking FMLA leave, Valtierra returned to work with Medtronic in December 2013. (Id. at 4.) He was placed in the same position that he had before his FMLA leave, at the same pay rate, and on the same shift. (Id. )

On June 11, 2014, just before Valtierra was scheduled to go on a week-long vacation, he signed off as completing 12 PMs in Mainsaver. (Docs. 54 at 6, 62 at 8; Doc. 58–4 at 33–44.) Supervisor Duke noticed Valtierra's notification of completed PMs. This raised a red flag for Supervisor Duke, as PMs take a significant amount of time to complete. Valtierra would have had to complete all 12 PMs in the last few hours of his last day prior to vacation. (Doc. 54 at 6.)

Supervisor Duke contacted Bob Enderle from Medtronic's human resources group regarding his concerns. Mr. Enderle asked Supervisor Duke to inspect the equipment in the areas that Valtierra said were serviced and suggested he take photos for verification purposes. (Id. at 7.) After investigation, it was concluded that Valtierra had not performed the maintenance that he claimed to have done. (Id. )

On June 23, 2014, when Valtierra returned from vacation, Supervisor Duke met with him to discuss the 12 PMs. (Id. ) Valtierra admitted that he signed off on the 12 PMs as being completed even though he never performed the work. (Id. ) Valtierra was placed on administrative leave pending further investigation. (Id. )

On July 2, 2014, Medtronic discharged Valtierra for falsification of company records, specifically that he admitted to signing off as having completed 12 PMs when, in fact, he had not completed the work. (Doc. 54 at 1.)

Valtierra alleges that he is morbidly obese, that his morbid obesity

is a disability, and that his discharge was in violation of the ADA. Further, he alleges that Medtronic retaliated against him for requesting a reasonable accommodation for his disability, and that Medtronic interfered with his ability to take leave under the FMLA.

Medtronic moves for summary judgment on all claims.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary Judgment

"A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense–on which summary judgment is sought." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, show "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. ; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union , 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). Substantive law determines which facts are material. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; see also Jesinger , 24 F.3d at 1130. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The dispute must also be genuine, that is, the evidence must be "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. ; see Jesinger , 24 F.3d at 1130.

A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims."Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ; see also Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven , 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 1994). The moving party need not disprove matters on which the opponent has the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings, but must set forth "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio , 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (1963) (amended 2010)); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture , 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995). The non-movant's bare assertions, standing alone, are insufficient to create a material issue of fact and defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

III. DISCUSSION

A. ADA Discrimination (Count 2)Valtierra's Prima Facie Case

Under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 –12213 (2012), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADAAA"), Pub.L. No. 110–325, 122 Stat. 3553, Valtierra must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the statute (physical or mental impairment

that limits one or more major life activities); (2) he is a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action due to his disability. See

Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr. , 675 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 2012).

If Valtierra establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Medtronic to provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision. See Mustafa v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. , 157 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 1998). If Medtronic disclaims any reliance on a discriminatory reason for taking the employment action, the burden shifts back to Valtierra to show that Medtronic's reason is actually a pretext for disability discrimination. Id.

Although Valtierra will ultimately bear the burden of showing a pretext for discrimination at trial, in Medtronic's motion for summary judgment it is the employer's "initial burden to present evidence negating an essential element of [Valtierra's] claim or to point to specific portions of the record that demonstrate that [Valtierra] cannot meet his burden at trial." Id. at 1176.

Medtronic contends that Valtierra cannot establish the first prong of his prima facie case, specifically that Valtierra's morbid obesity

does not qualify as a disability under the ADA and its governing regulations. (Doc. 53 at 8–9.) Medtronic argues that the...