Roberts v. Riker et al

Filing 10

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 10/16/2012. Discovery due by 12/31/2002. Dispositive Motions due by 2/28/2013. Telephone Conference set for 10/30/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. To participate in th e conference call, parties will call 615-695-2851 at the scheduled time. After consulting with Judge Sharp's courtroom deputy, this matter is set for trial on 8/21/2013 at 9:00 AM in Cookeville before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Pretrial Con ference set for 8/6/2013 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Judge Sharp will issue a separate order covering his requirements for the final pretrial conference and the trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 4/30/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COOKEVILLE DIVISION
ROSIE M. ARNOLD

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
FEDERAL-MOGUL PRODUCTS, INC.,
and DEBBIE HITCHCOCK,
individually,
Defendants

No. 2:11-0126
Judge Sharp/Brown
Jury Demand

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 16(d), the following Initial
Case Management Plan is adopted.
1.

Jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction

of

this

action

is

conferred upon the Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, 29 U.S.C.
§ 2617(a) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(5) and 12117(a). There is no
dispute as to jurisdiction in this matter.
2.

Plaintiff’s theory of the case: Plaintiff brings

this individual action pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993 (“FMLA”), the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title I of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Americans with
Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”). Defendants violated
these statutes by terminating Plaintiff’s employment because she
requested and took medical leave required by her serious health
condition/disability.

In

October

2009,

Defendants

sent

the

Plaintiff home from work due to onset of severe hypertension, and
instructed her to not return to work until she was released by her
health care provider. Plaintiff followed these instructions. She

complained about being penalized for this absence and was again
wrongfully denied leave in January 2010. Plaintiff was discharged
by Defendants on February 10, 2010 for “unsatisfactory attendance.”
The unsatisfactory attendance included the absences that occurred
when Defendants forced Plaintiff to take leave by sending her home
due to severe hypertension the previous October. Plaintiff requests
damages,

interest,

and

liquidated

damages

arising

from

her

discharge from employment with Defendants in violation of the FMLA
and the ADAAA. Plaintiff further requests compensatory damages and
punitive damages, and the award of such other equitable relief as
is found by the Court to be appropriate and due under the statutes.
3.

Defendant’s theory of the case:

Defendants deny

that they have engaged in any conduct in violation of the FMLA and
the ADA. Federal-Mogul denies it was aware that Plaintiff claimed
to be disabled under the ADA, or that Plaintiff requested leave for
any absence relating to a serious health condition. Plaintiff was
discharged for exceeding the maximum number of points allowed under
Federal-Mogul’s no-fault attendance policy, and not because of any
disability or in retaliation for requesting FMLA leave. Defendants
further deny any interference with Plaintiff’s FMLA rights.
Defendant Debbie Hitchcock denies that she played any
role in the decision to terminate Plaintiff, or that she otherwise
engaged in any conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s FMLA rights for
which she can be held individually liable.

2

4.

Plaintiff’s Identification of the issues:

a.
Whether Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights
under the FMLA and the ADAAA;
b.
The relief to be awarded to Plaintiff for
Defendants’ violations of the FMLA and the ADAAA.
5.

Defendants’ Identification of the issues:

a.
Whether
Defendant
Federal-Mogul
Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA and the ADAAA;

violated

b.
Whether Defendant Debbie Hitchcock took any
actions in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA and the
ADAAA that would subject her to individual liability;
c.
The relief, if any, to be awarded to Plaintiff
for the averred violations of the FMLA and the ADAAA by FederalMogul.
d.
The relief, if any, to be awarded to Plaintiff
for the averred violations of the FMLA and the ADAAA by Debbie
Hitchcock in her individual capacity.
e.
Whether Plaintiff was “disabled” under the ADA,
and if so, whether Federal-Mogul was aware of any such disability
during her employment.
f.
Whether Plaintiff gave notice that any leave or
absence that she took was related to a serious health condition as
defined by the FMLA.
g.
Whether Federal-Mogul’s decision to discharge
Plaintiff for violation of its attendance policy violated the ADA
and the FMLA.
h.
Whether Federal-Mogul’s decision to discharge
Plaintiff was because she was disabled under the ADA, and not
because of her violation of its attendance policy.
i.
Whether Federal-Mogul’s decision to discharge
Plaintiff was in retaliation for a request for FMLA leave, and not
because of her violation of its no-fault attendance policy.

3

j.
Whether Plaintiff’s claims were timely filed
within the respective statutes of limitations for the ADA and the
FMLA.
6.

Need for other claims or special issues under Rules

13-15, 17-21, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
The Parties do not anticipate at this time any counter-claims,
cross-claims, third-party claims, joinder of other parties or
claims, class action certification, or the need for resolution of
any issues arising under the above-cited rules.
7.

Witnesses: Plaintiff currently intends to call as

witnesses herself and William H. Sherwood, M.D.
In addition, Defendants identify the following as likely
witnesses: Debbie Hitchcock, Ned Cobb, HR Manager, and Larry
Lawrence, Plaintiff’s former supervisor.
8.

Initial Disclosures and Staging of Discovery: The

Parties will make initial disclosures on or before May 14, 2012.
All discovery shall be completed by both Parties no later than
December 31, 2012.
motion,

the

Prior to the filing of any discovery-related

Parties

will

schedule

conference with the Magistrate Judge.
conference

shall

check

with

and

conduct

a

telephone

The Counsel requesting the

opposing

counsel

as

to

their

availability before setting a time certain with the Court.
9.

Dispositive motions: The Parties shall file any and

all dispositive motions with the Court no later than February 28,
2013. Responses to such motions shall be filed no later than March
28, 2013.

The Parties shall have the opportunity to file a reply
4

to any response no later than April 11, 2013. If dispositive
motions are filed early, the response and reply dates are moved up
accordingly.

The motion and response memoranda are limited to 25

pages and the reply, if a reply is filed, is limited to five pages,
absent Court permission for longer pleading.
10.

Other deadlines: October 16, 2012, is the final

deadline for all motions to amend, or to add parties.
11.

Subsequent case management conferences: A telephone

conference with Magistrate Judge Brown to discuss case progress is
set for October 30, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.

To participate in the

conference call, parties will call 615-695-2851 at the scheduled
time.
12.

Alternative dispute resolution: The Parties have

discussed possible settlement without success. It is unknown at
this

time

whether

there

is

any

prospect

of

settlement.

Consequently, it is unknown if there is any need for a settlement
conference

or

a

need

for

utilization

of

alternative

dispute

resolution techniques.
13.

Consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge: The

Parties do not consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge.
14.

Target trial date:

The parties estimate that this

jury trial will take two to three days, depending on what issues
remain for trial.

After consulting with Judge Sharp’s courtroom

deputy, this matter is set for trial on August 21, 2013, at 9:00
a.m. in Cookeville.

Judge Sharp will conduct the final pretrial
5

conference on August 6, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., in Cookeville.

Judge

Sharp will issue a separate order covering his requirements for the
final pretrial conference and the trial.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

6