Hansen v. State of Illinois et al
Filing
33
OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff Stewart Hansen's Motion for Summary Judgment 18 and Motion for Sanctions 31 and Defendants' Motion to Stay its Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 29 are DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 16 July, 2018 11:20:51 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
STEWART HANSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, BRYON MEUNCH,
and DEB HARVEY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 17-cv-3256
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stewart Hansen’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 18) and Motion for Sanctions (d/e 31);
and Defendants’ Motion to Stay its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (d/e 29) (Second Motion to Stay). The parties
consented to proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of
Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and Reference Order
entered May 25, 2018 (d/e 16). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motions are all DENIED.
Procedurally, Hansen filed the Motion for Summary Judgment first.
The Defendants responded with their First Motion to Stay (d/e 27). The
Court denied the first Motion to Stay because Defendants failed to include
Page 1 of 7
the affidavit or declaration required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(d). Text order entered July 3, 2018. The Defendants responded with
the Second Motion to Stay. Hansen responded by asking for sanctions for
filing the Second Motion to Stay.
Hansen’s request for sanctions is denied. A party responding to a
motion for summary judgment may ask for a delay in responding to the
Motion. Federal Rule 56(d) states:
(d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a
nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified
reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its
opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take
discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The Defendants’ Second Motion to Stay asks the
Court to stay, or delay, consideration of Hansen’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and includes an affidavit stating reasons for the need for delay.
The Defendants, therefore, have complied with Rule 56(d). Sanctions are
not appropriate. The request for sanctions is denied.1
1
Hansen also did not comply with the service requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) for
motions for sanctions. Hansen must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local
Rules in the future.
Page 2 of 7
The Second Motion to Stay is also denied. Rule 56(d) requires a
party seeking delay in the consideration of a motion for summary judgment
to set forth “specified reasons” why they cannot respond to the motion for
summary judgment. The Affidavit attached to the Second Motion to Stay
states as the reasons for the requested stay:
5. The Parties and Court have not conducted a scheduling
conference or set a discovery schedule pursuant to Rule 26
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. Further, no discovery has been undertaken by any Party.
7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment will require the
exchange of discovery to garner facts required for
Defendants to respond.
Second Motion to Stay, attached Rule 56(d) of Andrew J. McGinley, ¶¶ 5-7.
The declaration is insufficient because the declarant does not specify the
information needed to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. He
only states that Defendants want to conduct discovery before responding.
The Court sees no reasons for discovery to respond to the Motion for
Summary Judgment. As explained below, the Motion for Summary
Judgment is insufficient on its face. The Court, therefore, denies the
Second Motion to Stay.
The Court also denies the Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary
judgment is appropriate when the allegations and evidence submitted
Page 3 of 7
shows that no material issue of fact remains. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Hansen alleges violations of his rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family Medical Leave
Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (FMLA); 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (ADA). See
Opinion entered June 12, 2018 (d/e 20) (Opinion 20), for a detailed
summary of Hansen’s allegations. In summary, Hansen alleges that he
has bi-polar disease. In April or early May 2016, Hansen requested and
received an accommodation for his condition. Thereafter, on September
12, 2016, Hansen was arrested at work for possession of illegal drugs and
drug paraphernalia. Hansen was thereafter suspended indefinitely. The
criminal charges against Hansen were dropped. Hansen applied for
unemployment benefits. The Defendant employer Illinois Central
Management Services (CMS) opposed his request on the grounds that he
was terminated for cause. An Illinois Administrate Law Judge (ALJ)
determined the indefinite suspension was a termination for purposes of
Illinois unemployment law and that CMS did not prove that it fired Hansen
for cause. See Opinion 20, at 2-5.
The Motion for Summary Judgment only cites the ALJ’s determination
to support the Motion. Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 2; see Complaint,
Page 4 of 7
Collective Exhibit, at 28-29, Administrative Law Judge’s Decision (ALJ’s
Decision).2 Hansen claims that the ALJ’s Decision proves that he was
wrongfully terminated in retaliation for exercising his rights under the ADA
and FMLA.
To establish FMLA retaliation for purposes of summary judgment,
Hansen must present evidence that (1) he engaged in protected activity
under the FMLA; (2) the Defendants took an adverse employment action
against him; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected
activity and the adverse employment action. Pagel v. TIN Inc., 695 F.3d
622, 631 (7th Cir. 2012). Similarly, to establish retaliation under the ADA for
purposes of summary judgment, Hansen must allege he engaged in
protected activity, he suffered an adverse employment action, and a causal
connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action. Freelain v. Village of Oak Park, 888 F.3d 895, 901 (7th
Cir. 2018).
The ALJ’s Decision does not establish each element of either claim.
First, the Court does not decide whether the ALJ’s Decision is admissible,
whether the Court must follow his findings, or whether the Defendants may
2
The Court cites the page numbers assigned by the Court’s CM/ECF system.
Page 5 of 7
attempt to prove the ALJ’s Decision is incorrect. The parties have not
litigated this issue at this time. For the purposes of the Motion for
Summary Judgment only, however, the Court assumes that the ALJ’s
Decision is controlling on the issue it decides.
Second, the ALJ’s Decision does not establish the elements of either
FMLA retaliation or ADA retaliation. The ALJ found that CMS did not
establish that it fired Hansen for cause for purposes of Illinois
unemployment law. The fact that Hansen was not fired for cause for
purposes of receiving unemployment benefits, does not, by itself, show a
causal connection between the exercise of his rights under the ADA and
FMLA and the termination. The Defendants could have put Hansen on
indefinite leave for a reason other than retaliation. Hansen has presented
no evidence on this point. In addition, the ALJ’s Decision does not contain
any findings about Defendants Bryon Meunch or Deb Harvey. Standing
alone, the ALJ’s Decision does not provide any evidence on Hansen’s
claims against them. As a result, Hansen has not presented enough
evidence to show that he is entitled to summary judgment.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Stewart Hansen’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 18) and Motion for Sanctions (d/e 31);
Page 6 of 7
and Defendants’ Motion to Stay its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (d/e 29) are DENIED.
ENTER: July 16, 2018
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 7 of 7
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?