Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.

Filing 64

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
COMMISSION
v.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 11-2153

OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.

DEFENDANT

O R D E R
Now on this 29th day of May, 2012, come on for consideration
the following:
*

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:
1.

Plaintiff

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Commission

("EEOC") brought suit (the "EEOC Complaint") upon the charge of
Charles

Grams

("Grams")

that

he

was

denied

reasonable

accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") by
policies of defendant Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. ("Old

Dominion").

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. §

2.

2000e-5(f)(1), which grants a person aggrieved by an act of
discrimination the right to intervene in a civil action brought by
the EEOC.

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.
3.

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
filed.

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,
2011.

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

-2-

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
moot.
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
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-