Taplin vs Mark Ellington, et al
Filing
27
ORDER granting 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 12/05/2013. (kf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
ROBERT TAPLIN
PLAINTIFF
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-8-CWR-FKB
MARK ELLINGTON, WAL-MART
STORE #1192, INSURANCE COMPANY
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Mark Ellington’s and
Defendant Wal-Mart Store #1192, Insurance Company’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for
Summary Judgment. Docket No. 23. The Court directed Plaintiff Robert Taplin to respond to the
motion, which Plaintiff has failed to do. As such, the Court rules on Defendant’s motion without
the benefit of Plaintiff’s arguments. Having carefully considered the record of this case, relevant
statutory and case law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, for the reasons
discussed below, the Court concludes that summary judgment should be GRANTED.
The facts of this case have been set forth in the Court’s previous rulings on separate
motions of the Defendants. See Taplin v. Ellington, No. 3:12-CV-8-CWR-FKB, 2012 WL
2886712 (S.D. Miss. July 13, 2012) (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a and 1983, and Fourteenth Amendment claims). Plaintiff’s original
complaint included violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C. §§ 1981a and 1983, the
Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and claims of racial discrimination in violation of Title
VII. Id. The only remaining issue is Plaintiff’s claim that “he had wrongfully been denied a
medical accommodation in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act . . . ,” id. at 1, which the
Court addresses herein.
1
In its motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred under the statute.
Docket No. 24, at 2. The Court agrees.
The pleadings establish that Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA were allegedly violated in
August or September 2009, when Wal-Mart denied his request to only work day shifts, “in order
to accommodate a diabetic condition causing him to fall asleep easily.” Taplin v. Ellington, 2012
WL 2886712, at *1.1 Plaintiff claims that Ellington played a role in this denial. “The statute of
limitations for FMLA claims is three years for willful violations, 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(2), and
two years for all other violations[,] 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1). To establish a willful violation of the
FMLA, a plaintiff must show that his employer ‘either knew or showed reckless disregard for the
matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by statute.’” Henson v. Bell Helicopter Textron,
Inc., 128 F. App’x 387, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not presented
evidence showing Wal-Mart “either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether
its conduct was prohibited by statute,” id.; therefore, the two-year limitation applies.
The FMLA states that “an action may be brought under this section not later than 2 years
after the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which the action is brought.”
29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1). Because Taplin brought his FMLA claim on January 5, 2012, Docket
No. 1, he exceeded the FMLA’s two-year time limitation, as Defendants’ alleged violation
occurred in September 2009. Thus, his FMLA claim will be dismissed and Defendants’ motion is
hereby GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of December, 2013.
1
The Defendants propounded Requests for Admissions to the Plaintiff, but he failed to respond to them.
Defendants requested Taplin to admit that he “asked Wal-Mart to provide [him] with an accommodation for [his]
diabetes in late August or early September 2009.” Docket No. 23-2 (Request for Admission No. 3). Rule 36 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “unambiguously states that when a request goes unaddressed for more than 30
days, it is admitted.” Love v. Marriott Intern., Inc., No. 3:11cv314, 2013 WL 588155, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 11,
2013). Taplin’s failure to respond to any of the requests closed the door on his claim. See Hill v. Breazeale, 197 F.
App’x 331, 337 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming summary judgment when pro se plaintiff failed to timely respond to
requests for admissions concerning essential issues of plaintiff’s claim).
2
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?