Tate v. United Airlines Inc
Filing
28
Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable William T. Hart on 6/15/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TONIA TATE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 16 C 8689
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. §12111, et seq., (“the ADA”). The court has jurisdiction of the action and
the parties pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and
1343.
Before the court are plaintiff’s motion to amend the pleadings by adding
class action allegations as set forth in a First Amended Class Action Complaint
and defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to supply additional information and
documents in response to interrogatories and requests for the production of
documents.
I.
Plaintiff Tonia Tate (“Tate”) was employed by defendant United
Airlines, Inc. from 1998 until November 12, 2012 as a flight attendant. She has
been diagnosed as having Type I diabetes which she alleges substantially limits
one or more of her major life activities. It is further alleged that her physical
impairment was increased by being subjected to long periods of standing while
working as a flight attendant.
It is alleged that UAL has a policy and practice of treating Tate's
condition as a common illness without accommodation of medical restrictions and
terminating employees for missing work when absent from work as a result of
such disability. Plaintiff alleges that she was so terminated for being absent from
work after being subjected to a hostile work environment.
Tate seeks to bring this action on behalf of herself and other UAL
similarly situated employees pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 23(b)(3). She alleges the
following class definition.
All persons who were employed by the Defendant, its
subsidiaries and affiliated companies, as Flight Attendants or
similarly situated employees, in the United States at any time
during the relevant statute of limitations period, individuals
with disabilities, absent from work because of their disability,
and discharged under the attendance policy used by Defendant.
-2-
Plaintiff alleges numerosity, common questions of law and fact,
typicality, adequacy and the superiority of a class, factors which must be
considered before a class can be certified.
Plaintiff is not seeking class certification at this time. However,
defendant attacks the proposed class allegations of the complaint. An order
denying amendment to allege class action allegations or to strike class action
allegations is functionally equivalent to an order denying class certification. In re
Bemis Co., 279 F. 3d 419, 421 (7th Cir. 2002).
Defendant's position, that the proposed class action complaint asserting
that ADA complaints of the kind alleged are not conducive to class actions, is
contrary to the holdings in Hendrix-Robinson v Excel Corp., 154 F. 3d 685 (7th
Cir. 1998) in which the court considered an employer’s lay-off policy in an ADA
class action context and ordered a trial of such issues.
Notice is taken of the ADA consent decree entered by this court in the
case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Airlines, Inc.,
10 C 1699, on June 8, 2015. In that proceeding UAL consented to an injunction
requiring it to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees and
required to it modify its assessment, training and notice practices. Although that
case was not a class action, it provides background information and the facts may
-3-
be of relevance in an ADA class action if one is certified. For present purposes, it
supports the plausibility of plaintiff’s class action complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U. S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 556 (2007). The
motion to file an amended complaint will be granted and time will be allowed for
class action discovery and the filing of a motion to certify a class.
II.
Defendant contends that the plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories and
response to the request for documents is incomplete. The information sought is
incomplete. However, some or all of the information may be provided when
plaintiff gives a deposition. Plaintiff also states that some information will be
provided as required by F.R.C.P. Rule 26. Accordingly, ruling on defendant’s
motion will be reserved until after plaintiff is deposed. However, plaintiff must
promptly furnish the initial disclosures required by Rule 26 (a)(1).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file it First Amended Class Action
Complaint (Dkt. 12) is granted. Defendant’s motion to strike the class action
allegations (Dkt. 20) is denied.
(2) Defendant is granted 14 days to answer the amended complaint.
(3) Class-action discovery must be completed by October 2, 2017.
-4-
(4) Any motion to certify a class shall be filed by October 2, 2017.
(5) The parties shall comply with the initial disclosure requirements of
Rule 26(a)(1) within 14 days.
(6) Defendant’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt.16) is reserved.
(7) This case is set for a hearing on status on October 5, 2017 at 2 PM.
ENTER:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: JUNE 15, 2017
-5-
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?