The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge United States District Court
This matter is before the Court upon defendant James Beasley's motion for summary judgment (doc. 13). Plaintiff Kimberly Swearingen opposes the motion (doc. 24). This matter is also before the Court upon defendant's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the summary judgment motion (doc. 15) and defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's supplemental response to defendant's reply memorandum (doc. 32).
Plaintiff was employed as a secretary/receptionist with the Brown County Engineer's Office from December 4, 1995 until September 19, 1993, when she claims that her employment was wrongfully terminated in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and Ohio public policy. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against James Beasley, the Brown County Engineer, and John Doe defendants. Defendant Beasley moves for summary judgment on all claims against him.
The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the opposing side has highlighted as true, false, or irrelevant (docs. 22, 29). The undisputed facts are set forth below.
1. Plaintiff worked as a receptionist/secretary for the Brown County Engineer's Office from approximately December 4, 1995 until her employment was terminated on September 19, 2003.
2. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, defendant was an employer subject to the provisions of the FMLA and plaintiff was an employee under the FMLA.
3. Plaintiff was injured on July 4, 2003, when a firecracker exploded in her face.
4. Plaintiff informed Beasley's administrative assistant Lisa Berry that she would not be coming back to work after the July 4, 2003 holiday because of this accident and injury.
5. As of September 19, 2003, plaintiff had not yet returned to work. She had been off work less than twelve weeks.
6. Plaintiff's employment with the Brown County Engineer's Office was terminated on September 19, 2003. The reason given for the termination was plaintiff's absence from work.
7. Plaintiff had worked for defendant for at least 12 months prior to her termination and had worked for defendant more than 1,250 hours in those 12 months.
8. Defendant never took any independent steps to investigate the reason for plaintiff's need for leave ...