Adigun v. Express Scripts, Inc.

Filing 49

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 3/30/2017. (csr)

Sti

?Ktittelii ^tates( I9ts(trtct Court

for tlie ^ontfiem Biotrict of C>eorgta
^mtioiofcft IBtbtOtott
LORETTA C.

*

ADIGUN,

*

Plaintiff,

*

V.

*

*

*

EXPRESS SCRIPTS,

INC.,

CV 216-39

*
*

Defendant.

He
*
•k

*
*

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Loretta C. Adigun's
{'''Plaintiff")

Motion

for

the reasons stated below,

Summary

Judgment

(Dkt.

No.

27) .

For

the motion is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD

Summary

there

is

movant

Civ.

burden
material

(1986) .

that
A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

no

is

P.

judgment

genuine

entitled to

56(a).
of

The

is

dispute

as

judgment

party

demonstrating

fact.

required where

Celotex

as

seeking

the

is

any
a

Corp.

v.

material

matter

summary

absence

To satisfy this burden,

there

to

"the movant

of

Catrett,

a

of

fact

law."

judgment
genuine
477

shows

U.S.

that

and
Fed.

bears
issue
317,

the
R.

the
of
323

the movant must show the court

an absence of evidence to support

the nonmoving

party's case.
affect

the

FindWhat

at 325.
outcome

Inv'r

Cir.

2011)

242,

248

of

Grp.

v.

the

the

court

v.

favorable
inferences
Washington

view

the

in

governing

F.3d 1282,

Lobby,

law."

1307

Inc.,

(llth

477

U.S.

A dispute over such a fact is ^'genuine" if the

to

to

the

658

Liberty

reasonable jury could return a verdict

nonmoving party."
is

under

FindWhat.com,

''evidence is such that a
the

suit

(quoting Anderson

(1986) .

for

A fact is ^'material" if it ^'might

all

of

the

nonmoving

that

Broad.

In making

Serv.,

evidence

party

party's

and

favor.

Inc.,

this

234

in

determination,
the

draw

all

Johnson
F.3d

light

reasonable

v.

501,

most

Booker

507

(llth

T.
Cir.

2000).
DISCUSSION

The
this

the

motion before

matter

motion

neither

filed

at

their

issue

party

the

has

answer

was

had

Court

is

little

filed.

any

premature.
more

Dkt.

"The law in this circuit is clear:

than

No.

opportunity

Defendants
a

12.

to

month

As

conduct

a

in

before

result,

discovery.

the party opposing a motion

for summary judgment should be permitted an adequate opportunity
to

complete

Jones

V.

discovery

City of

(per curiam).

point

to

Columbus,

to
120

consideration
F.3d

248,

254

of

the

motion."

(llth Cir.

1997)

No such discovery has occurred here.

Regardless,

this

prior

Plaintiff

warrant

has

granting

failed

to

summary

present

judgment.

evidence

While

at

not

entirely

clear.

Plaintiff's

claim

appears

to

be

one

for

disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities
Act

(^^ADA") .

The ADA prohibits

discrimination by an

employer

''against a qualified individual on the basis of disability" in
any of

the

"terms,

conditions,

42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).

ADA

requires

adverse

a

qualified

to

action,

individual,

show

she

and

1)

3)

that,
had

was

a

at

Inc.,

"qualified

842

employment."

F.3d

individual"

1333,

is

reasonable accommodation,

1337,

"an

the

time

disability,

subjected

discrimination because of her disability.
Hosp.,

of

Establishing a prima facie case under the

plaintiff

employment

and privileges

2)

the

was

unlawful

St.

Joseph's

(11th. Cir.

individual

a

to

EEOC v.

1349

of

2016).

who,

or

with

A

without

can perform the essential functions of

the employment position that such individual holds or desires."
42 U.S.C.

At
she

had

§

12111 (8).

this
a

point.

heart

Plaintiff

condition

patient care advocate.

was

afforded

short-term

has

and

provided

worked

Further,

benefits
Dkt.

Plaintiff has provided no evidence that
return to work.
a

"To be a

the

evidence
Defendant

that
as

a

it appears undisputed that she

disability

amount of leave in accommodation.

for

some

No.

and

a

37 p.

substantial
6.

However,

she was well enough to

'qualified individual'

under the ADA,

person must be able to perform the essential functions of his

or her

job with or without a

reasonable accommodation."

Wood

V.

Green,

323 F.3d 1309,

in litigation,
Plaintiff

rule

that

is

a

1312

(11th Cir.

2003).

At this point

the Court cannot say one way or another whether
qualified employee.

there

is

no

genuine

As

issue

such,

of

the

fact,

Court

cannot

and

summary

judgment cannot be granted in Plaintiff's favor.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above.
Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Loretta C. Adigun's

(Dkt. No. 21)

SO ORDERED, this 30th day of March,

is DENIED.

2017.

LISA GODBEY WOOD,
UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN

CHIEF JUDGE

DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA