Boston v. MedManagement, Inc.

Filing 10

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 6/1/2012. Discovery due by 9/28/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 11/9/2012. Jury Trial set for 4/23/2013 at 9:00 AM before Senior Judge John T. Nixon. Pretrial Conference set for 4/12/2013 at 10:00 AM before Senior Judge John T. Nixon. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 3/12/12. (dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LISA BOSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDMANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12cv0059
Judge Nixon
Magistrate Judge
JURY DEMAND

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Come now the parties, through counsel, and file this Proposed Case Management
Order. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01, the following Initial Case Management Plan is
adopted.
1.

Jurisdiction and Venue
This Court has jurisdiction of plaintiff’s ADAAA claim under 28 U.S.C. §1331

and 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(4). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of plaintiff’s state
law claim under 28 U.S.C. §1367 because this claim is so related to plaintiff’s claims
under the ADAAA that it forms part of the same case or controversy. Jurisdiction and
venue are not disputed.
2.

Theories of the Case
A.

Plaintiff’s Theory of the Case

Plaintiff was employed by defendant from August 2010 until she was terminated
on January 12, 2011. In the three days leading up to her termination, plaintiff was seen
and evaluated by at least two physicians for possible breast cancer and lymphoma.

Defendant knew of plaintiff’s medical condition and treatments and terminated plaintiff
while plaintiff was waiting to be admitted into the hospital for a lymphoma workup.
When she was terminated, plaintiff was a qualified individual as defined in the
Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), 42 U.S.C. §12111(8)
because plaintiff had the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related
requirements of her job, and, with or without reasonable accommodation, could perform
the essential functions of such position. Defendant fired plaintiff because defendant
regarded plaintiff as having breast cancer or lymphoma, or another physical impairment
that substantially limited one or more major life activities.

Defendant’s decision to

terminate plaintiff was made on the basis of an actual or perceived impairment, and
defendant therefore regarded plaintiff as disabled as defined in the ADAAA, 42 U.S.C.
§12101(3). Defendant’s termination of plaintiff on the basis of an actual or perceived
impairment constitutes unlawful discrimination against plaintiff in violation of the
ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §12112(a), and the Tennessee Disability Act, T.C.A. §8-50-103.
B.

Defendant’s Theory of the Case

The Defendant is a healthcare management company that provides non-medical
administrative services to physicians and to companies owned by physicians.

The

Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a temporary contractor on August 31, 2010,
and became a full-time employee effective September 13, 2010. She was hired as an
Administrative Assistant.
During her employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff made a number of
inappropriate comments about her personal life to other employees and used
inappropriate language. The Plaintiff complained about some of her job duties and was
generally extremely difficult.

She made other employees with whom she worked
2

extremely uncomfortable.
The Plaintiff’s performance was also generally unsatisfactory, for which she was
coached and counseled on several occasions. The Plaintiff’s attitude, skill set and ability
to complete her job in a professional manner decreased with the passing of time. The
smallest of projects would become complicated and took long amounts of time. The
Plaintiff also had problems with attendance and punctuality.
The Defendant made the decision to terminate the Plaintiff on Friday, January 7,
2011, and intended to inform her of the decision on Monday, January 10, 2011. The
Plaintiff did not come to work on January 10, 2011, or the next day. As the Defendant
did not know when the Plaintiff would return, she was called on January 12, 2011 and
informed of her termination.
The Defendant was terminated for poor work performance. The Defendant was
unaware of any medical problems the Plaintiff allegedly had, or that she was purportedly
seeking treatment and/or testing for cancer. The Defendant denies discriminating against
the Plaintiff either for having a disability, or perceiving her as having a disability.

3.

Identification of the Issues
No issues in this case have been resolved. All issues remain for resolution before

the Court.
4.

Status of Response Pleadings and Service of Process
Plaintiff filed her complaint January 11, 2012. Defendant filed its Answer on

February 20, 2012. This Court entered an Order on February 22, 2012, resetting the
Initial Case Management from April 2, 2012 to March 12, 2012.

3

5.

Need for Other Claims or Special Issues under Local Rules 13-15 and 17-21 and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
None expected at this time.

6.

Witnesses Subject to Supplementation
None known at this time.

7.

Mandatory Initial Disclosures and Staging of Discovery
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), the parties are prepared to exchange their

mandatory initial disclosures on or before April 12, 2012.
All fact discovery shall be completed by September 28, 2012. All discovery
related motions shall be filed no later than October 5, 2012. Before filing any discoveryrelated motion, the parties will schedule and conduct a telephone conference with the
Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff shall reveal any expert witnesses it intends to use at trial, including
reports required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, on or before August 31, 2012. Defendant
shall make its responsive disclosures, if any, on or before September 28, 2012.
All expert witness depositions shall be completed by October 29, 2012.
8.

Dispositive Motions
Any dispositive motions shall be filed by November 9, 2012. The non-moving

party shall file a response by December 10, 2012. All replies, if any, shall be filed by
December 24, 2013. If dispositive motions are filed early, the response and reply dates
shall move up accordingly.
Any motion and response memoranda are limited to twenty-five pages, and
replies, if any, are limited to five pages, absent Court permission for longer pleading.
9.

Other Deadlines
4

Any motions to amend and/or to add additional parties shall be made by June 1,
2012.
10.

Subsequent Case Management Conferences
The parties do not believe that a subsequent case management conference will be

necessary.
11.

Settlement/Alternative Dispute Resolutions
No settlement or Alternative Dispute Resolution discussions have taken place, but

both parties are willing to participate in such discussions.

If the parties need the

assistance of the Court, they will initiate a request for assistance.
12.

Target Trial Date
Jury trial is set to begin on April 23, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. before Senior Judge Nixon.

A pretrial conference shall be held on April 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Nixon.
Trial is expected to take 3-4 days.
13.

Other Issues and Matters
The default provisions of Administrative Order No. 174 shall apply regarding

electronic discovery.
All other issues and matters will be taken up as they arise.
The parties’ statements of their theories and the issues of the case shall not be
deemed a waiver of any defense or claim that further investigation into the facts of this
claim may reveal.
It is so ORDERED:
Entered March 12, 2012.

5

s/ John S. Bryant
Honorable Magistrate Judge Bryant

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:
BONE McALLESTER NORTON, PLLC
BY:

/s/ Anne C. Martin
ANNE C. MARTIN, #15536
511 Union Street, Suite 1600
Nashville, TN 37219
[phone] phone
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant MedManagement, Inc.

Wade B. Cowan, (S.C. #9403)
150 Second Avenue North, Suite 225
Nashville, TN 37201
[phone] phone
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff Lisa Boston

6