Vaughn v. Safeway, Inc.

Filing 146

ORDER That Safeways Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief 95 , filed April 14, 2015, is denied; That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 129 filed September 14, 2015, is approved and adopted as an order of this court; and That the Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability as Against Defendant, Safeway, Inc. 101 filed April 24, 2015, is denied, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/9/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01066-REB-NYW
JAMES VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAFEWAY, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Safeway’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Supporting Brief [#95]1, filed April 14, 2015; (2) the Amended Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability as Against Defendant, Safeway, Inc.
[#101] filed April 24, 2015; and (3) the related Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#129] filed September 14, 2015. The plaintiff, James Vaughn, filed
a response [#105] to the motion for summary judgment of the defendant, Safeway, Inc.,
and Safeway filed a reply [#110]. The recommendation [#129] addresses only the
motion for partial summary judgment [#101] of Mr. Vaughn. Mr. Vaughn filed objections
[#130] to the recommendation, and Safeway filed a response [#135] to the objections. I
approve and adopt the recommendation and deny both motions for summary judgment.

1

“[#95]” is an example of the convention I use to refer to the docket number assigned in CM/ECF
to a motion or order, and will be used throughout this Order.

I have jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and
28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, the objections, the response to the objections, the other filings in this
case, and the applicable case law. In the recommendation the magistrate judge
provides a thorough description of relevant evidence, arguments, and legal standards.
Properly, the magistrate judge concludes that the motion for partial summary judgment
[#101] of Mr. Vaughn should be denied because there remain genuine disputes as to
material facts.
The motion for summary judgment [#95] of Safeway addresses many of the
same issues as the motion for partial summary judgment of Mr. Vaughn. I have
reviewed the motions for summary judgment, the responses, the replies, and the
apposite arguments, authorities, and evidence presented by the parties. It is apparent
that there exist genuine disputes as to material facts that are not appropriate for
summary resolution. For example, there is evidence in the record showing the nature of
the medical restrictions faced by Mr. Vaughn when he was placed on unpaid medical
leave and the nature of the medical restrictions faced by Mr. Vaughn when he was
permitted to return to work. The effect those restrictions had on the ability of Mr.
Vaughn to perform the essential duties of his job at various points in time and the
motivations of Safeway decision makers when making the employment decisions at
issue in this case present genuine disputes as to material facts. The existence of these
and other genuine disputes as to material facts make it improper to grant the motion for
summary judgment [#95] of Safeway.
2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Safeway’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief
[#95], filed April 14, 2015, is denied;
2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#129] filed
September 14, 2015, is approved and adopted as an order of this court; and
3. That the Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability as
Against Defendant, Safeway, Inc. [#101] filed April 24, 2015, is denied.
Dated November 9, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3