Wertz v. GEA Heat Exchangers Inc. et al
Filing
76
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the R&R of MJ Carlson is ADOPTED. Dfts' Mtn for SumJmg is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 70 Jan Kurkus (in his individual capacity) and Lutz Wolf (in his individual capacity) are terminated. 53 72 There shall be a Telephone Conference set for 3/22/2017 at 01:30 PM to set a trial date for this case. Pltf's shall initiate the call. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 3/3/2017. (sc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANNY J. WERTZ,
Plaintiff
v.
GEA HEAT EXCHANGERS INC.,
PHE DIVISION, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 1:14-cv-1991
(Judge Kane)
ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned disability discrimination and
retaliation case against his former employer and various individual Defendants, alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), the
Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2615 et seq. (“FMLA”), and parallel provisions of the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Ps. Cons. Stat. §§ 951 et seq. (“PHRA”). (Doc. No. 1.)
On October 11, 2016, this Court referred Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment
(Doc. No. 53), to Magistrate Judge Carlson for preparation of a Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. No. 71.) On December 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Carlson issued his Report and
Recommendation recommending denial of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
No. 72.)
Defendants filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 73), with a
supporting brief (Doc. No. 74), on January 12, 2017. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to
Defendants’ Objections on January 26, 2017. (Doc. No. 75.) In their Objections, Defendants
argue that: (1) the Report and Recommendation’s conclusion that there exists a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability is incorrect, as
that conclusion is based on a “sham” Declaration and overlooks undisputed evidence; (2) the
Report and Recommendation improperly conflates its analysis of Plaintiff’s ADA and FMLA
claims, and fails to adequately address Defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
terminating Plaintiff and the issue of pretext; and (3) the Report and Recommendation
improperly fails to address Defendants’ argument that the individual claims against Defendant
Brubaker and Defendant Delaronde should be dismissed. (Doc. No. 73 at 2.)
After careful review of the record, the Court finds Defendants’ Objections to be without
merit. As to Defendants’ first Objection, the Court finds that the record reveals disputed issues
of fact regarding whether Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, without regard to the
Declaration referenced by Defendant. (See Doc. No. 57, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 52-56.) With regard to Defendants’ second
Objection, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation adequately analyzes Plaintiff’s
FMLA and ADA claims, including Defendants’ proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for Plaintiff’s termination, and Plaintiff’s evidence of pretext. (See Doc. No. 72 at 12-13, 25-34.)
Finally, while the Report and Recommendation does not explicitly discuss Defendants’ argument
that it is entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims against individual Defendants
Brubaker and Delaronde, the Court’s review of the evidence of record reveals disputed issues of
material fact precluding the entry of summary judgment in favor of those Individual Defendants
on the claims asserted against them. (See Doc. No. 57, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 29-30, 97-99, 105, 108.)
ACCORDINGLY, upon independent review of the record and applicable law, on this
3rd day of March 2017, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 72), is
ADOPTED; and
2.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 53), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, upon consideration of the parties’ Stipulation for
Dismissal (Doc. No. 70), as to Defendants Jan Kurkus and Lutz Wolf, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1):
1.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Kurkus and Wolf are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE;
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Defendants Kurkus and Wolf as
Defendants in this action; and
3.
There shall be a status telephone conference on March 22, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. to set
a date for trial of this matter. The telephone number of the Court is 717-2213990. Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the call.
s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?