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.

Robert Carlock v. T.D. Crane Service

May 18, 2012

ROBERT CARLOCK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T.D. CRANE SERVICE, INC., AND TIM DIAL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge:

E-FILED

Friday, 18 May, 2012 03:41:34 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

Pending before the Court is the Motion of Defendant Tim Dial for Partial Summary Judgment and the Motion of Defendant T.D. Crane Service, Inc. to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction.

In an Order entered on February 1, 2012, the Court Allowed the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to any Title VII claims. The Court Denied the Motion to the extent that Plaintiff Robert Carlock was asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Moreover, the Motion was Denied to the extent that Plaintiff was asserting any state law retaliation claims.

I.

Defendant Tim Dial now moves for partial summary judgment on the basis that he was never the Plaintiff's "employer" within the meaning of the ADA. At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant T.D. Crane Service. In support of that assertion, Dial cites paragraphs 5 and 6 of his affidavit which is attached to the motion. He also relies on the Plaintiff's Pro Se Complaint, which states that Plaintiff was employed by T.D. Crane Service.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the motion is properly supported and "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court construes all inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. See Siliven v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, 635 F.3d 921, 925 (7th Cir. 2011).

The ADA allows only for employer liability, not individual liability. See Silk v. City of Chicago, 194 F.3d 788, 797 n.5 (7th Cir. 1999). For that reason, Dial claims he is entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiff's ADA claim.

In his Response to the Motion, the Plaintiff states only that Defendant has not included a Statement of Material Facts. A party moving for summary judgment must "[l]ist and number each undisputed material fact which is the basis for summary judgment." See CDIL-LR 7.1(D)(1)(b). Any relevant documentary evidence must be included as exhibits to the motion. See id.

Defendant Dial has included and properly supported the one fact that is dispositive of his motion. The Plaintiff has not created a factual dispute as to the assertion. Accordingly, Dial is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the ADA claim.

II.

Defendant T.D. Crane seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis it is not an "employer" under the ADA because, at all relevant times, it employed less than 15 people. The ADA defines "employer," in relevant part, as "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 ...


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.