Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bustamente v. Eugene Burger Management Corporation

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 16, 2014

CHERYL BUSTAMENTE, Plaintiff(s),
v.
EUGENE BURGER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendant(s)

ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Eugene

Burger Management Corporation ("EBMC") and Eugene Burger Management Corporation of Nevada ("EBMCNV"). (Doc. #22). Plaintiff Cheryl Bustamente filed a response (doc. #23) with accompanying exhibits (docs. #24-27), and defendants filed a reply (doc. #30).

I. Background

First, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by not "find[ing] a reasonable accommodation for [p]laintiff's disability..." and for terminating plaintiff as a result of her disability and medical needs. (Doc. #1 at 4).

Next, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") by not providing her with a family medical leave of absence form after plaintiff requested one on May 17, 2012, and by terminating plaintiff for requesting FMLA leave. (Doc. #1)....

Plaintiff was employed by EBMCNV from April 20, 2011, to May 18, 2012, as a resident property manager. (Doc. #23-1). Around January 2012, plaintiff had knee trouble necessitating the use of crutches. (Doc. #22-2 at 19). Plaintiff e-mailed her supervisor, Katherine Wolfe, on February 10, 2012, informing Wolfe of plaque accumulation in plaintiff's knee that made it difficult to climb stairs. (Doc. #24). At some point after March 27, 2012, plaintiff informed Wolfe she may require surgery. (Doc. #23-1). On March 30, 2012, Wolfe informed her superior that she had decided to terminate plaintiff. (Doc. #22-9).

On May 3, 2012, plaintiff e-mailed Wolfe to inform her of plaintiff's May 14, 2012, doctor's appointment, which Wolfe acknowledged in a May 7, 2012, e-mail response. (Doc. #23-1). Plaintiff e-mailed Wolfe on May 14, 2012, to inform her that surgery would take place on May 25, 2012. Id. Plaintiff submitted a leave of absence request form to Wolfe on May 16, 2012. (Doc. # 24-1). Plaintiff was dismissed on May 18, 2012. (Doc. #22-13).

Plaintiff initially filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and the EEOC mailed a right to sue letter on September 20, 2012. (Doc. #1). The complaint was timely. (Doc. #1).

Plaintiff requests an injunction, back pay and "front pay" based on reduced income, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre-judgment interest. (Doc. #1 at 6-7).

II. Legal Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

When the non-moving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the non-moving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the non-moving party's evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.