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.

Williamson v. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

January 27, 2015

CARRIE WILLIAMSON, f/k/a CARRIE HOLZGRAFE, Plaintiff,
v.
FERMI NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY, c/k/a Fermilab, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JORGE ALONSO, District Judge.

Plaintiff sues defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA"). The case is before the Court on defendant's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56 motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

Facts

In May 2010, defendant hired plaintiff as an administrative support assistant, and on July 15, 2010, it fired her. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶¶ 2-3.) On July 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that defendant discriminated against her because of her disability and genetic information. ( Id. ¶ 4.)

On March 5, 2012, plaintiff filed a pro se voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. ( Id. ¶ 6; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 2.) On the portion of the petition that asks plaintiff to list "contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, " plaintiff wrote "N" for none. ( See Def.'s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Tab 3, Bankr. Pet., Schedule B.) In her statement of financial affairs, filed with the bankruptcy court on April 2, 2012, where it asks her "[to] [l]ist all suits and administrative proceedings to which [she] is or was a party within one year immediately preceding the filing of [her] bankruptcy case, " plaintiff listed only "Asset Acceptance v. Carrie Holzgrafe." ( Id., Tab 4, Statement of Financial Affairs at 3) (emphasis in original).

At some point between March 5, and July 23, 2012, plaintiff told the bankruptcy trustee, Gina Krol, about plaintiff's EEOC charge against defendant and gave Krol a copy of it. ( See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt., Ex. 3, Williamson Aff. ¶¶ 4-6; id., Ex. 4, Krol Aff. ¶ 4.) On July 23, 2012, Krol held a creditors' meeting at which plaintiff and Krol discussed the EEOC charge, and Krol told plaintiff to amend her petition to include it. ( Id., Ex. 3, Williamson Aff. ¶ 7; id., Ex. 4, Krol Aff. ¶ 5; see Def.'s Reply Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 1, Tr. Creditors' Meeting at 8-14.) Plaintiff did not, however, amend the petition. ( See generally Def.'s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Tab 3, Bankr. Pet.)

On August 9, 2012, Krol reported that she "made a diligent inquiry into the financial affairs of the debtor and the location of the property belonging to the estate; and that there [was] no property available for distribution from the estate over and above that exempted by law." (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt., Ex. 4, Krol Aff. ¶ 7.)

On September 28, 2012, the EEOC District Director issued a determination letter to plaintiff, which states in relevant part:

I have determined that the evidence obtained in the investigation establishes reasonable cause to believe that [defendant] discriminated against [plaintiff] because of her disability and her genetic information, in that she was discharged, in violation of the ADA and GINA.
I have also determined that [defendant] discriminated against a class of individuals, including [plaintiff], by acquiring their genetic information, in violation of GINA.

(Def.'s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Tab 2, Letter from EEOC to Pl. (Sept. 28, 2012).) Plaintiff says she did not learn about the determination letter until December 26, 2012, because the EEOC mailed it to the wrong address. (Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt., Ex. 3, Williamson Aff. ¶¶ 13-18.)

On June 6, 2013, plaintiff filed this suit.

Discussion

To prevail on a summary judgment motion, "the movant [must] show[] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). At this stage, we do not weigh evidence or determine the truth of the matters asserted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). We view all evidence and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Ill., Inc., 209 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2000). Summary ...


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.