Opinion
No. 1:00CV274-D-A
March 13, 2002
OPINION GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Presently before the court is the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Upon due consideration, the court finds that the motion should be granted.
A. Factual Background
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a heavy equipment mechanic from April 3, 1999, until his termination from employment in late 1999. After his termination, the Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging disability discrimination, and he was issued a right-to-sue letter on May 12, 2000. The Plaintiff commenced this employment discrimination action on August 10, 2000, asserting that the Defendant terminated his employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (ADA).
Thereafter, on January 24, 2002, the Defendant filed the pending motion for summary judgment, asserting that the ADA does not apply because the Defendant does not employ fifteen or more employees.
B. Summary Judgment Standard
A party is entitled to summary judgment "if 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 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). On a motion for summary judgment, the movant has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Under Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the burden then shifts to the non-movant to go beyond the pleadings and "by . . . affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. That burden is not discharged by mere allegations or denials. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
While all legitimate factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. Before finding that no genuine issue for trial exists, the court must first be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the non-movant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
C. Discussion
The ADA makes it unlawful for a covered entity to discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability "because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A "covered entity" is an "employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2). The statutory term "employer" means "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such person . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A); Bloom v. Bexar County, Texas, 130 F.3d 722, 724 (5th Cir. 1997).
In an ADA case, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that the Defendant employed the number of persons needed to trigger application of the ADA. See Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 681 F.2d 1039, 1052 (5th Cir. 1982) (holding that the party invoking the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of "alleg(ing) with sufficient particularity the facts creating jurisdiction" and of "support(ing) the allegation" if challenged); Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446, 62 S.Ct. 673, 675, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942) ("[I]f a plaintiff's allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the allegations by competent proof.").
Here, the Plaintiff simply asserts in the complaint and in an affidavit that the Defendant "regularly employed more than fifteen people;" the Plaintiff has not provided the names of fifteen employees, nor provided any other competent evidence supporting his conclusion that the Defendant employed fifteen or more people. The Plaintiff argues that this showing is sufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact, precluding a grant of summary judgment. The Defendant, however, challenges the Plaintiff's assertion that fifteen employees were employed by the Defendant; in conjunction with this challenge, the Defendant has provided the names of all the persons it asserts were employed.
It is axiomatic that the party opposing summary judgment must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255. Conclusory statements in the complaint or in an affidavit do not provide facts that will counter summary judgment evidence, and testimony based on conjecture alone is insufficient to raise an issue to defeat summary judgment. Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 949 F.2d 790, 798 (5th Cir 1992); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Here, the Plaintiff's statements in the complaint and in his affidavit are conclusory and unspecific, and as such are inadequate to raise a genuine issue of material fact in this case. See Shaboon v. Duncan, 252 F.3d 722, 736-37 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth "ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law" are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment).
The court holds that the Plaintiff has plainly failed to offer competent evidence supporting his conclusion that the Defendant had enough employees in order to allow the court to impose liability under the ADA. Accordingly, the court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the Plaintiff's claims, and the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
D. Conclusion
In sum, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted. The Defendant has shown that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiff's claims.
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that
(1) the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (docket entry 17) is GRANTED;
(2) the Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
(3) this case is CLOSED.
All memoranda, depositions, declarations and other materials considered by the court in ruling on this motion are hereby incorporated into and made a part of the record in this action.
SO ORDERED.