DEL TINTO v. CLUBCOM, LLC
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ZOOM MEDIA & MARKETING, CLUBCOM, LLC, ZOOM MEDIA CORP. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 11/15/2012. (lmt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GINA N. DEL TINTO,
Plaintiff,
12cv0070
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
v.
CLUBCOM, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is the Defendants’ collective Motion for Summary Judgment in this case
wherein Plaintiff sued her former employer and under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§12101 et seq.1 Doc. No. 36. Defendants’ Brief in Support of the
Summary Judgment Motion sets forth several reasons why Judgment should be entered in favor
of Defendants. Doc. No. 39. Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition to the Motion (doc. no. 44)
and Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition. Doc. No. 58. The matter is now ripe for
disposition.
I. Standard of Review
A Court must grant summary judgment, “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and [if] the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a). This determination requires that we view the facts in the light most
Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. no. 1) referenced the ADA. The enactment of the Americans with
Disabilities Act Amendment Act expanded coverage of the ADA and is often referred to by the
acronym, “ADAAA.” In reaching its decision in this matter, the Court has utilized statutory and
case law which post-dates the enactment of the ADAAA, but will refer to Plaintiff’s claim as one
made under the ADA for simplicity.
1
favorable to the nonmovant and draw all inferences in her favor. Stratechuck v. Bd. of Educ., S.
Orange–Maplewood Sch. Dist., 587 F.3d 597, 603 (3d Cir. 2009).
A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and
the dispute is genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Olivieri v. County of Bucks, 2012 WL 5235684, *4 (3d Cir. 2012), citing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “Where the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue
for trial.’” Id., citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587
(1986).
Once the moving party has properly supported its showing that there is no triable issue of
fact and demonstrated an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the non-moving party “must
do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts.”
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. The non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and by [its]
own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
In summary, the inquiry under a Rule 56 motion is whether the evidence of record
presents a genuine dispute over material facts so as to require submission of the matter to a jury
for resolution of that factual dispute or whether the evidence is so one-sided that the movant
must prevail as a matter of law. It is on this standard that the Court has reviewed the
Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion and the Plaintiff’s Response.
2
II. Background - Material Facts
The following material facts are not in dispute and have been taken directly from the
parties’ Joint Concise Statement of Material Facts.
In 2011, Plaintiff worked for Defendant ClubCom, LLC, a subsidiary of Defendant Zoom
Media Corporation. Doc. No. 60, ¶¶ 1-3. While working for Defendants, Plaintiff’s title was
“local data entry sales employee” and her primary job duty was to input data from advertising
sales contracts into Defendants’ computer system. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff’s employment with
Defendants began in February of 2011 and ended on September 13, 2011, when Plaintiff
resigned from the company. Id. ¶ 6.
Plaintiff does not have a learning disability. Id. ¶¶ 10, 30. Plaintiff claims that she
learned from one co-worker that another co-worker -- Sarah O’Toole -- called her a “freakin’
retard,” a fact which O’Toole, the alleged speaker, denied shortly after O’Toole and Plaintiff had
a disagreement on or about August 24 and 25, 2011, over a sales contract. Id. ¶¶ 12, 17.
Plaintiff said that she was offended by this term because her father’s second cousin has Down
Syndrome and her niece has Asperger’s Disorder. Id. ¶ 30.
O’Toole was not Plaintiff’s supervisor, O’Toole did not supervise Plaintiff in any way,
Plaintiff and O’Toole did not share a supervisor, and O’Toole was physically located on the
opposite side of building from Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 13-15. Plaintiff’s interactions with O’Toole
occurred on an as-needed basis, when questions arose pertaining to information contained in the
contracts that Plaintiff was to input into the data entry system. Id. ¶ 16.
The dispute between Plaintiff and O’Toole arose over a sales contract obtained by a sales
representative. Id. ¶ 17. The sales representative had instructed that someone from O’Toole’s
department was to contact him when the sales contract arrived at Defendants’ place of business,
3
but when Defendants’ receptionist opened the package containing the sales contract, she gave it
directly to Plaintiff so she could input the contract data into Defendants’ computer system. Id.
¶¶ 18-20. When employees from O’Toole’s department went looking for what they thought was
a “missing” contract, they eventually determined the receptionist had failed to deliver it to them.
Id. ¶¶ 21-22.
Plaintiff overheard some form of disagreement between the receptionist and the
employees from O’Toole’s department, and later, she and the receptionist met with Plaintiff’s
supervisor, John Lapcevic, and discussed the issue related to the sales contract. Id. ¶¶ 23-24.
Plaintiff’s supervisor told Plaintiff that he would handle the matter. Id. ¶ 25. Also, at some later
point in time, the receptionist asked O’Toole if O’Toole was angry with her over the subject
contract issue, and, according the receptionist, O’Toole answered in the negative, stating, “No, I
think you are being paranoid. I’m not mad at you. We’re made [sic] at Gina for being retarded.”
Id. ¶ 26.
A day after speaking to O’Toole concerning the contract issue, the receptionist told
Plaintiff that O’Toole said the following, “It is not you [the receptionist] that I am mad at. It is
Gina, that freaking retard.” Id. ¶ 28.2 Plaintiff and the receptionist reported O’Toole’s use of the
pejorative term to Lapcevic, Plaintiff’s supervisor. Id. at ¶ 31.3 Neither party has proffered any
further evidence that Plaintiff ever again complained to any of Defendants’ management-level
employees about O’Toole’s conduct.
2
During discovery each of the above individuals was deposed. O’Toole denied using the term
“retard” and instead testified that she recalled referring to Plaintiff as a “bitch.” Id. at ¶ 29. The
receptionist testified that she recalled O’Toole saying Plaintiff was “being retarded” for reporting
a computer problem to Lapcevic. Id. Plaintiff expressed uncertainty as to the exact pejorative
term that the receptionist told her O’Toole used. Id.
During his deposition, Lapcevic testified that he did not recall Plaintiff complaining to him
about O’Toole’s use of the term “freaking retard.”
3
4
Subsequent to the receptionist and Plaintiff’s meeting with Lapcevic, Plaintiff sent him
an email which stated, “After our meeting with [the receptionist], I don’t think I need to talk to
you about any further issues. It’s not worth it at this point. Thanks for listening.” Id. at ¶ 34.
Thereafter, Plaintiff asked O’Toole if O’Toole had called her a “freaking retard.” Id. at
¶ 36. In addition, Lapcevic contacted Defendants’ COO, Marc Farber, regarding the conflict
between the receptionist and O’Toole. Id. at ¶ 38. A meeting was held among the receptionist,
her supervisor, O’Toole, her supervisor and others, but Plaintiff was not present at that meeting.
Id. ¶ 38-41.
On September 13, 2011 – the day Plaintiff resigned – O’Toole sent Plaintiff a contract
number which Plaintiff had requested from another employee. Id. ¶ 46.4
III. Discussion
The ADA5 prohibits employers from discriminating against those individuals who
possess “qualified disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. §12112. The ADA defines disability as follows:
The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual –
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in
paragraph (3)).
42 U.S.C.A. § 12102 (1).
The contract number was sent to Plaintiff within four minutes of her having made the request of
the other worker. See doc. no. 37-2.
4
The legal standards set forth above also apply to Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). See Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d
Cir. 1996).
5
5
Here, Plaintiff has admitted that she does not have a “mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities,” and she does not contend that there is a
record of her having such an impairment. Plaintiff admits that the only way that she can meet
her burden of proving that she has a disability, and thus, has a viable claim under the ADA,
would be if she was regarded as having a mental impairment.
Case law established by United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
determined that in order to be “regarded” as having a mental impairment, a plaintiff must prove
that: (1) the defendants mistakenly believed that he had an impairment, or that (2) the plaintiff
had a non-limiting impairment that the defendants mistakenly believed substantially limited a
major life activity. See Rawlins v. New Jersey Transit, 431 Fed.Appx. 145, 146-7 (3d Cir. 2011),
citing Tice v. Ctr. Area Transp. Auth., 247 F.3d 506, 514 (3d Cir. 2001).
Recently, in Wolski v. City of Erie, Judge McLaughlin for the United States District Court
for the Western District Court summarized the law in this area as follows;
A person is regarded as having a disability if she:
(1) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit
major life activities but is treated by the covered entity as constituting such
limitation;
(2) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life
activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such
impairment; or
(3) Has [no such impairment] but is treated by a covered entity as having a
substantially limiting impairment. Hershgordon v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.,
285 Fed. Appx. 846, 848 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Taylor v. Pathmark
Stores, Inc., 177 F.3d 180, 187 (3d Cir. 1999)).
If a plaintiff is attempting to establish that the employer believed her to be
substantially limited in the life activity of working, then the plaintiff must
establish that the employer believed her to be limited in her ability to work in
either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the
average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. See
6
Hershgordon, 285 Fed. Appx. at 848 (quoting Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,
527 U.S. 471, 491, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999)); Tice v. Centre Area
Transp. Authority, 247 F.3d 506, 514 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing authority). See also 29
C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (2008) (stating that an individual is substantially limited
with regard to working if there is a significant restriction in a person’s ability to
perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as
compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.).
Wolski, ___ F.Supp. ___, 2012 WL 4499305, *10 (W.D.Pa. Sept, 12, 2012).
As noted above, although the evidence presented here must be construed in a light most
favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of pointing to specific,
record facts which demonstrate a genuine dispute. Based upon all of the above-cited case law,
Plaintiff must prove that her employer believed she was disabled or limited in her ability to
work.
In the instant case, Plaintiff points to evidence that a co-worker used a pejorative term
with respect to Plaintiff on at least one occasion. There is no dispute among the parties that
name-calling that ensued did not involve management personnel and took place subsequent to a
work-related argument among Defendants’ receptionist, Plaintiff, and employees in a different
department than the one in which Plaintiff worked. Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence
which would provide even the slightest indication that her employer perceived her as mentally
deficient in any way.
Despite this lack of evidence, Plaintiff contends that her ADA claim, which she framed as
a hostile work environment claim, can survive Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
This Court disagrees.
However, in order to establish a prima facie case for an ADA-hostile work environment
claim, Plaintiff must first prove that she has a disability as defined above. See Lescoe v.
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections-SCI Frackville, 464 Fed.Appx. 50, 54 (3d Cir. 2012). In
7
affirming the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Court of
Appeals in Lescoe specifically noted that the appellant (the plaintiff) had failed to establish he
had a disability under the ADA. Thus, he would not be able to legally meet his burden of
proving an ADA hostile work environment claim. See also Ginsburg v. Aria Health Physician
Services, 2012 WL 3778110, *5 (E.D.Pa. August 31, 2012) (“Under the ADA, a plaintiff
claiming a hostile work environment must show: ‘(1) [he] is a qualified individual with a
disability under the ADA; (2)[he] was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was
based on his disability or a request for an accommodation; (4) the harassment was sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and to create an abusive working
environment; and (5) [his employer] knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to
take prompt effective remedial action,’” citing Walton v. Mental Health Ass’n of Se. Pa., 168
F.3d 661, 667 (3d Cir.1999)); and Brudnak v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 2012 WL
4006043, *8 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 12, 2012)(“A claim for harassment based on disability, like one
under Title VII, would require a showing that: (1) [plaintiff] is a qualified individual with a
disability under the ADA; (2)[he] was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was
based on [his] disability or a request for an accommodation; (4) the harassment was sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and to create an abusive working
environment; and (5) that [the employer] knew or should have known of the harassment and
failed to take prompt effective remedial action.”).
Accordingly, because a hostile work environment claim pursued under the ADA first
requires the person to be disabled, and under the circumstances present here, all of Plaintiff’s
disability claims required her employer to “believe” or perceive she was mentally impaired, and
because there is no evidence of record to support a finding that Plaintiff’s employer believed
8
Plaintiff was mentally impaired, summary judgment will be granted in favor of Defendants with
respect to Plaintiff’s ADA claims.6
Finally, because Plaintiff’s PHRA claims are tied to this Court’s interpretation of the
ADA claims, Plaintiff’s PHRA claims will also be dismissed. See Kelly v. Drexel University,
94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d Cir. 1996) (While the Pennsylvania courts are not bound in their
interpretations of Pennsylvania law by federal interpretations of parallel provisions in Title VII,
the ADA, or the ADEA, its courts nevertheless generally interpret the PHRA in accord with its
federal counterparts).
IV. Conclusion
Based on the above-cited statutory and case law, Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment will be GRANTED. An appropriate Order of Court follows.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc: All ECF Counsel of Record
6
Plaintiff’s Complaint also advanced an ADA-predicated retaliation claim, but Plaintiff’s
Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment does not address the arguments
raised by Defendants with respect to this claim. Thus, it appears as though Plaintiff has
abandoned that claim. Regardless, the Court has read through the numerous appendices attached
to Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s submissions in support of, and in opposition to, the Motion for
Summary Judgment and can find no evidence which would establish a prima facie retaliation
claim under the ADA. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence that she was
engaged in “protected employee activity” and suffered ramifications for engaging this activity.
9
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?