Holl v. Postal Service (U.S.), No. 1:2009cv00618 - Document 34 (S.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendation 28 . Case is Dismissed and Terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 9/15/11. (do1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Holl v. Postal Service (U.S.) Doc. 34 U N I T ED ST AT ES DI ST RI CT COU RT SOU T H ERN DI ST RI CT OF OH I O WEST ERN DI V I SI ON SH ARON A. H OLL, Pla int iff C-1 -0 9 -6 1 8 J OH N E. POT T ER, POST M AST ER GEN ERAL, De fe nda nt ORDER T his matter is be fore t he Court upon t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion of t he U nit e d St a t e s M a gist ra t e J udge (doc . no. 2 8 ), pla int iff’s obje c t ions (doc . no. 3 2 ) a nd de fe nda nt ’s re sponse (doc . no. 3 3 ). T he M a gist ra t e J udge c onc lude d t ha t 1 ) pla int iff fa ile d t o sa t isfy t he t hre shold issue t ha t she is disa ble d unde r t he Re ha bilit a t ion Ac t ; 2 ) pla int iff fa ile d t o prove a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ina t ion or host ile w ork e nvironm e nt ; 3 ) pla int iff fa ile d t o ra ise he r re que st for a c c om m oda t ions in e it he r of he r t w o EEOC c om pla int s a nd t he re by fa ile d t o e x ha ust a ny c la im re ga rding a c c om m oda t ions; 4 ) pla int iff 1 Dockets.Justia.com fa ile d t o e st a blish re t a lia t ion by de fe nda nt in de nying FM LA le a ve be c a use t he de t e rm ina t ion t ha t pla int iff w a s not e nt it le d t o FM LA le a ve w a s ba se d upon he r la c k of suffic ie nt c onse c ut ive w ork da ys a nd w a s m a de by t he FM LA c oordina t or w ho ha d no prior k now le dge of pla int iff’s prior EEOC a c t ivit y; 5 ) pla int iff fa ile d t o e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ina t ory t re a t m e nt ba se d upon he r ra c e ; 6 ) pla int iff fa ile d t o e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of re t a lia t ion; a nd 7 ) pla int iff fa ile d t o e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of a ge or ge nde r disc rim ina t ion. T he M a gist ra t e J udge t he re fore re c om m e nde d t ha t de fe nda nt ’s M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt (doc . no. 1 6 ) be gra nt e d a nd t his c a se be t e rm ina t e d on t he doc k e t of t his Court . Pla int iff obje c t s to t he M a gist ra t e ’s J udge 's Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion on t he grounds t ha t he r findings a re c ont ra ry t o la w a nd m a k e s t he follow ing obje c t ions. Pla int iff obje c t s t o t he M a gist ra t e J udge ’s finding t ha t pla int iff Sha ron A. H oll ha s not e st a blishe d prim a fa c ie c la im s for disa bilit y disc rim ina t ion. Pla int iff a rgue s t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge a lso e rre d by fa iling t o find t ha t pla int iff e st a blishe d a prim a fa c ie c la im for 2 re t a lia t ion, FM LA e ligibilit y, re ve rse ra c e disc rim ina t ion, host ile w ork e nvironm e nt a nd a ge /ge nde r disc rim ina t ion. De fe nda nt s make t he follow ing re sponse s to pla int iff’s obje c t ions. T he M a gist ra t e J udge c orre c t ly se t fort h t he a pplic a ble c ont rolling la w a nd prope rly a pplie d t ha t la w t o t he undisput e d fa c t s in t his c a se . Prope rly ra ise d obje c t ions t o a M a gist ra t e J udge ’s Re port a re re vie w e d de novo . Fe d. R. Civ. Proc ., R. 7 2 . Ge ne ra l obje c t ions, how e ve r, a re not suffic ie nt t o pre se rve a n issue for re vie w a nd a ge ne ra l obje c t ion t o t he e nt ire t y of t he Re port is t he sa m e a s no obje c t ion. Obje c t ions t ha t m e re ly re st a t e a rgum e nt s ra ise d in t he m e m ora nda c onside re d by t he M a gist ra t e J udge a re not prope r, a nd t he Court m a y c onside r suc h re pe t it ive a rgum e nt s w a ive d. De fe nda nt furt he r a rgue s t ha t a n obje c t ion t o t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion is not a prope r pla c e t o offe r ne w a rgum e nt s. M urr v. U nit e d St a t e s, 2 0 0 F.3 d 8 9 5 , 9 0 2 n.1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 0 ). As t o obje c t ions in Se c t ion I I A., pla int iff re lie s on t he a na lyse s in Ca le ro-Ce re zo v. U .S. De pt . of J ust ic e , 3 5 5 F.3 d 6 (1 st Cir. 2 0 0 4 ); T a lle y 3 v. Fa m ily Dolla r St ore s of Ohio, I nc ., 5 4 2 F.3 d 1 0 9 9 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 8 ); Ac e v. St a t e of N e w Y ork , 2 0 7 A.D.2 d 8 1 3 , 8 1 5 , 6 1 6 N .Y .S.2 d 6 4 0 (N .Y .A.D. 1 9 9 4 )( Frie dm a nn, J ., disse nt ing), a ffd. 8 7 N .Y .2 d 9 9 3 , 6 6 5 N .E.2 d 6 5 6 , 6 4 2 N .Y .S.2 d 8 5 5 (N .Y .1 9 9 6 ); K ing v. T ow n of Wa llk ill, 3 0 2 F. Supp. 2 d 2 7 9 (S.D.N .Y . 2 0 0 4 ); Willia m s v. Bright , 1 6 7 M isc .2 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 3 , 6 3 2 N .Y .S. 2 d 7 6 0 (N .Y .Sup. 1 9 9 5 ), re v’d , 2 3 0 A.D.2 d 5 4 8 , 6 5 8 N .Y .S. 2 d 9 1 0 (N .Y .A.D. 1 9 9 7 ). Pla int iff re lie s on t he a na lyse s in t he follow ing c a se s a s t o t he obje c t ions in Se c t ion I I B: Sha piro v. Soc ia l Se c urit y Adm inist ra t ion, EEOC Re que st N o. 0 5 9 6 0 4 0 3 (De c e m be r 6 , 1 9 9 6 ) [sic ]; Burlingt on & N ort he rn Sa nt a Fe Ra ilw a y Co. v. Whit e , 5 4 8 U .S. 5 3 (2 0 0 6 ). As t o pla int iff’s obje c t ions in Se c t ion I I C, pla int iff dire c t s t he Court ’s a t t e nt ion t o t he follow ing st a t ut e s a nd c a se s: 2 9 U .S.C. § 2 6 1 2 (a )(1 )(D); 2 9 U .S.C. § 2 6 1 1 (1 1 ); 2 9 U .S.C. § 2 6 1 4 (a )(1 ); 2 9 U .S.C. § 2 6 1 5 (a )(1 ); Bre nne m a n v. M e dCe nt ra l H e a lt h Sys. , 3 6 6 F.3 d 4 1 2 , 4 2 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c it ing 2 9 C.F.R. § 8 2 5 .2 2 0 (c )), c e rt . de nie d, 5 4 3 U .S. 1 1 4 6 (2 0 0 5 ); K illia n v. Y orozu Aut o. T e nn., I nc . 4 5 4 F. 3 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 5 -5 6 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 6 ); Wa lt on v. Ford M ot or Co., 4 2 4 F.3 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 5 )( c it ing 4 Ca vin v. H onda of Am . M fg., I nc ., 3 4 6 F. 3 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 9 (6 Cir. 2 0 0 3 )); 2 9 th U .S.C. § 2 6 1 4 (a )(1 ); Arba n v. We st Pub. Corp., 3 4 5 F. 3 d 3 9 0 , 4 0 0 -4 0 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) a nd 2 9 U .S.C. § 2 6 1 5 (a )(2 ). As t o pla int iff’s obje c t ions in Se c t ion I I D, pla int iff re lie s on t he de posit ions of Sha ron H oll a nd J ua n Z a m udio. Addit iona lly, pla int iff re lie s on t he follow ing c a se s a nd st a t ut e s in Se c t ions I I E a nd I I F: Robe rt Bra nt le y J r. v. H e nde rson, Post m a st e r Ge ne ra l, U .S. Post a l Se rvic e , (EEOC OFO 4 /2 8 /0 0 ) [sic ]; M a c Douga ll v. Pot t e r, 4 3 1 F. Supp. 2 d 1 2 4 (D. M a ss. 2 0 0 6 ); N a t iona l R.R. Pa sse nge r Corp. v. M orga n, 5 3 6 U .S. 1 0 1 , 1 1 6 (2 0 0 2 ); 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e -1 6 (a ); 2 9 U .S.C. § § 6 2 1 , e t . se q. ; 2 9 U .S.C. § § 7 0 1 , e t . se q. ; Ba rne t t e v. Che rt off, 4 5 3 F.3 d 5 1 3 , 5 1 5 (D.C. Cir. 2 0 0 6 ); M c Donne ll Dougla s Corp. v. Gre e n, 4 1 1 U .S. 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ) a nd Bra dy v. Offic e of Se rge a nt a t Arm s, 5 2 0 F.3 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 4 (D.C. Cir. 2 0 0 8 ). CON CLU SI ON U pon a de novo re vie w of t he re c ord, e spe c ia lly in light of pla int iffs obje c t ions, t he Court finds t ha t pla int iffs obje c t ions ha ve e it he r be e n a de qua t e ly a ddre sse d a nd prope rly dispose d of by t he 5 M a gist ra t e J udge or pre se nt no pa rt ic ula rize d a rgum e nt s t ha t w a rra nt spe c ific re sponse s by t his Court . T he Court finds t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge ha s a c c ura t e ly se t fort h t he c ont rolling princ iple s of la w a nd prope rly a pplie d t he m t o t he pa rt ic ula r fa c t s of t his c a se a nd a gre e s w it h t he M a gist ra t e J udge . Ac c ordingly, t he Court he re by ADOPT S AN D I N CORPORAT ES BY REFEREN CE H EREI N t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion of t he U nit e d St a t e s M a gist ra t e J udge (doc . no. 2 8 ). De fe nda nt ’s M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt (doc . no. 1 6 ) is GRAN T ED. T his c a se is DI SM I SSED AN D T ERM I N AT ED on t he doc k e t of t his Court . I T I S SO ORDERED. s/H e rm a n J . We be r _____ H e rm a n J . We be r, Se nior J udge U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
