Hunter v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee

Filing 42

ORDER: Report and Recommendations 39 is adopted and approved. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 20) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages beyond March 7, 2013, is DISMISSED. The remaining American with Disabilities Amendments Act ("ADAAA") claim remains set for trial on December 16, 2014. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 9/19/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

LARRY HUNTER
v.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON
COUNTY, TENNESSEE

)
)
) NO. 3-12-0916
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
)
)

ORDER
Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket
No. 39), Defendant’s Objections (Docket No. 40), and Plaintiff’s Response to Objections (Docket
No. 41).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the
Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, the Objections, the Response, and the
file. The Objections of the Defendant are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted
and approved.
The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the reasonable and proper category of comparable
employees are the other four employees who were in the Maintenance I category at the Fairgrounds.
The Plaintiff is not required to demonstrate an exact correlation between himself and the proposed
comparators. Bobo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 741, 751 (6th Cir. 2012).
Moreover, because this is a work force reduction case, the fifth element of Plaintiff’s prima
facie case requires the Plaintiff to show additional direct, circumstantial or statistical evidence
tending to indicate that Defendant singled out Plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons.
Geiger v. Tower Automotive, 579 F.3d 614, 623 (6th Cir. 2009). The Magistrate Judge found,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff (as she is required to do), that additional
evidence was presented that Mr. Dozier, who was the ultimate decision maker, made comments to
a former Fairgrounds worker that Plaintiff was selected to lose his job because he was lazy and
didn’t do a lot of work; that his position would not need to be filled because he wouldn’t be missed.
Whether Dozier actually made these comments and what he meant at least raise genuine issues of
material fact as to his motivation for selecting Plaintiff. Those issues cannot be determined on
summary judgment.
Finally, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Defendant’s decision to fire
Plaintiff came immediately after his suspension. There is conflicting testimony as to when the
decision to select Plaintiff as the one person to be fired occurred. A jury will have to determine the
credibility of the witnesses and decide.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 20) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages beyond March 7, 2013, is
DISMISSED. The remaining American with Disabilities Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) claim
remains set for trial on December 16, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2