Hill v. Phoenix, City of et al

Filing 82

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 69 Motion for Summary Judgment. A telephonic hearing is set for 2/17/2016 at 3:00 PM before the Honorable David G. Campbell, 401 West Washington Street, Courtroom 603, Phoenix, AZ 85003. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate a conference call to include counsel for Defendants and the Court. See Order for complete details. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/8/2016.(DGC, nvo)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Stacia C. Hill, No. CV-13-02315-PHX-DGC Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER RE JANUARY 19, 2016 HEARING City of Phoenix, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The parties should be prepared to address the following matters at the oral 17 argument to be held on January 19, 2016. Answers should be provided on the basis of 18 evidence already in the summary judgment record; these questions do not constitute an 19 opportunity to present additional evidence. 20 1. Plaintiff states: “By mid-April 2012, Plaintiff began to experience ankle 21 pain due being on her feet ninety-five percent of her shift.” Doc. 70, ¶ 276 (citing Ex. 1 22 at 270:10-271:10; Ex. 3 at 26:11-17)). 23 informed until July 26, 2012 that Plaintiff’s ankle condition had worsened or that her 24 position required her to spend too much time on her feet. Doc. 76, ¶ 276; see also id., Ex. 25 56, ¶ 46 (deposition of Anthony Lopez, stating “I never saw Plaintiff limping nor was I 26 aware that she felt she was spending too much time on her feet.”). Plaintiff shall be 27 prepared to direct the Court to any evidence in the record showing that she communicated 28 her ankle-related concerns to the City before July 26, 2012. Defendants contend that the City was not 1 2. Plaintiff indicated in her deposition that she began researching long-term 2 disability (“LTD”) options in April 2012. 3 judgment that she “only elected to pursue long term disability benefits because Defendant 4 refused to provide reasonable employment accommodation for her disabilities.” Doc. 69 5 at 9. Plaintiff shall be prepared to direct the Court to any evidence in the record that 6 shows she sought additional accommodations or alerted Defendant to any worsening of 7 her conditions before beginning her research into LTD in April 2012. 8 9 10 3. She states in her motion for summary For both sides: What evidence in the record shows when Plaintiff first requested that she be permitted to work four ten-hour days? 4. For Plaintiff: What evidence shows that Off Duty supervision was more 11 sedentary than the front desk job, and what evidence shows that Plaintiff ever requested 12 that position? 13 5. Questions for Defendants: Plaintiff states in her affidavit and testified in 14 her deposition that she was not aware of the May 31, 2012 meeting arranged by 15 Lieutenant Lopez and that the meeting did not concern ADA matters in any event. Isn’t 16 it true that the Court must accept these assertions as true for purposes of ruling on 17 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment? If so, isn’t it also true that Plaintiff’s failure 18 to attend the May 31 meeting cannot provide a basis for ruling on summary judgment that 19 she was responsible for breakdown of the interactive process? 20 6. Questions for Defendants: The evidence in this case shows that Defendants 21 provided Plaintiff with “reasonable accommodation medical questionnaires” on 22 June 26, 2012, for purposes of clarifying her medical conditions and assessing possible 23 accommodations. Doc. 68, Ex. 8. Plaintiff contends that she returned the questionnaires. 24 Doc. 71, ¶¶ 206-208. Isn’t true that the Court must accept this fact as true for purposes of 25 ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment? And, if so, isn’t it also true that 26 the Court cannot rely upon her failure to return the questionnaires as a basis for a 27 summary judgment ruling that she was responsible for breakdown of the interactive 28 process? -2- 1 2 7. Question for Plaintiff: What specific evidence in the record supports your contention that the City failed to engage in the interactive process? 3 In responding to these questions, the parties should be prepared to provide docket 4 entry and page cites (i.e., “Docket 70-1 at page 15”) so that the cited evidence can be 5 located by the Court in the docket. 6 Dated this 13th day of January, 2016. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?