Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
ORDER denying without prejudice 35 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, denying as moot 49 defendant's Rule 56(d) Motion and denying as moot 52 defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of its Rule 56(d). Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on May 29, 2012. (sh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Civil No. 11-2153
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.
O R D E R
Now on this 29th day of May, 2012, come on for consideration
Grams's Motion For Summary Judgment (document #35);
Defendant's Rule 56(d) Motion To Defer Consideration of
Intervenor, Charles Grams' Motion For Summary Judgment And To Take
Discovery (document #49); and
Defendant's Unopposed Motion For Leave To File A Reply
Brief In Support Of Its Rule 56(d) Motion To Defer Consideration
Of Intervenor, Charles Grams' Motion For Summary Judgment And To
Take Discovery (document #52),
and from said motions, and the responses thereto, the Court finds
and orders as follows:
("EEOC") brought suit (the "EEOC Complaint") upon the charge of
accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") by
policies of defendant Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. ("Old
Those policies, according to the EEOC Complaint,
prohibit any truck driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from
returning to a driving position, and condition return to a nondriving position upon enrollment in a treatment program.
Grams was allowed to intervene, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(f)(1), which grants a person aggrieved by an act of
discrimination the right to intervene in a civil action brought by
Grams filed the pending Motion For Summary Judgment
within weeks of intervening.
Old Dominion sought relief from the necessity of timely
responding, asserting the need to take discovery.
In the ordinary course of things, once a complaint has
been filed and answered, discovery is conducted so that the
parties can explore the contours of the case.
Either during or
after the close of discovery -- once sufficient evidence is
accumulated to support it -- a motion for summary judgment may be
Grams seeks to short-circuit that process, but the Court
finds no reason to allow such.
The initial Complaint in this matter was filed on August 16,
It is now May 29, 2012, and so much procedural skirmishing
has taken place -- primarily over the manner in which Grams has
pled his claim -- that the matter has only now reached the point
where an Initial Scheduling Order can appropriately be issued and
discovery can commence.
The Court believes it would be unfair to
all parties -- and a waste of judicial resources -- to attempt to
resolve the Motion For Summary Judgment in this posture. For this
reason, Grams's Motion For Summary Judgment will be denied,
without prejudice to its renewal when discovery has occurred, and
the other motions
will be denied as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Grams's Motion For Summary
Judgment (document #35) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Rule 56(d) Motion To
Defer Consideration of Intervenor, Charles Grams' Motion For
Summary Judgment And To Take Discovery (document #49) is denied as
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Unopposed Motion For
Leave To File A Reply Brief In Support Of Its Rule 56(d) Motion To
Defer Consideration Of Intervenor, Charles Grams' Motion For
Summary Judgment And To Take Discovery (document #52) is denied as
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?