Latowski v. Northwoods Nursing Center

Filing 54

ORDER granting 51 , 52 MOTION to Stay Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
JENNIFER LATOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 11-cv-11086
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

NORTHWOODS NURSING CENTER,
Defendant.
__________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
In February 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part this Court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendant Northwoods on all of Plaintiff Latowski’s claims.
Specifically, the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on Latowski’s Pregnancy
Discrimination Act claim and remanded for further proceedings. In accordance with the Sixth
Circuit’s mandate, this Court issued an order reopening the case and providing a scheduling
order. See ECF No. 50.
On April 10, 2014, Northwoods filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings. Northwoods notes
that there is a petition for writ of certiorari pending before the United States Supreme Court in a
similar case—Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226. Northwoods asserts that, if the
Supreme Court were to grant certiorari in Young, the outcome of that case would be dispositive
on the instant proceedings in this Court. Northwoods explains that, for purposes of Latowski’s
Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim, “the [Sixth Circuit], relying on Ensley-Gaines,1 held that
the relevant question is not whether the plaintiff and comparator employees were similarly
situated in all respects but whether they were similarly situated ‘in their ability to work.’” Mot. to
1

Ensley-Gaines v. Runyon, 100 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir. 1996).

Stay 3-4, ECF No. 52. However, the Fourth Circuit expressly disagreed with Ensley-Gaines’s
analysis, instead following the conclusions of three other circuits: “[I]t is unsurprising that no
other circuit has followed Ensley-Gaines. We are similarly compelled to disagree with its
analysis.” Id. at 7.
Thus, Northwoods contends, the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Ensley-Gaines—which is
controlling in the instant litigation—is in direct conflict with Young and three other circuits. And
if the Supreme Court were to adopt Young’s holding, “it likely would invalidate Ensley-Gaines,
and thus the Sixth Circuit’s holding in this matter. According to Northwoods, staying the
proceedings in this case until the Supreme Court has made a decision in Young would avoid
wasting time and resources. The Court agrees that judicial economy would be best served by
entering a stay in the instant litigation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 51 and
52) is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that this matter is STAYED pending the Supreme Court’s
decision to grant or deny certiorari in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226.
It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to notify the Court when the
Supreme Court has reached a decision regarding a grant or denial of certiorari in Young v. United
Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: April 23, 2014

-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on April 23, 2014.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-3-