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)

Download PDF
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, ''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

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?