United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
OPINION & ORDER
MICHAEL R. BARRETT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon Defendant Jake Sweeney
Automotive, Inc's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 4).
Plaintiff Tammy Mullins filed a Response (Doc. 7) and
Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 8). Plaintiff was permitted to
file a Supplemental Reply (Doc. 9-1), to which Defendant
filed a Response (Doc. 10).
brings employment discrimination claims against Defendant
under the Family Medical Leave Act and Americans with
September 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed bankruptcy in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
Case No. 14-21416. On January 22, 2015, the bankruptcy court
approved Plaintiff's bankruptcy plan. (E.D. Ky. Case No.
14-21416, Doc. 29).
February 1, 2016, Plaintiff was informed that she had been
terminated by Defendant on January 8, 2016. (Doc. 1, ¶
14). After Plaintiff learned that her discharge may have been
illegal, she notified her bankruptcy attorney that she was
pursuing legal action. (Doc. 7-1, Mullins Decl., ¶ 3).
January 26, 2017, Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue
on her claims from the EEOC. On March 2, 2017, Plaintiff
filed her Complaint in this Court.
15, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary on the
grounds that Plaintiff lacked standing and that she was
judicially estopped from pursuing this action because she had
not disclosed the claim to the bankruptcy court. On June 26,
2017, Plaintiff's bankruptcy counsel filed an amended
bankruptcy schedule identifying her claim against Defendant.
(E.D. Ky. Case No. 14-21416, Doc. 71).
October 16, 2017, the bankruptcy court entered an order
dismissing her bankruptcy for failing to make payments under
the plan in a timely manner. (E.D. Ky. Case No. 14-21416,
Doc. 74). Plaintiff's debts were not discharged.
Summary Judgment Standard
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment
is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” The moving party has the
burden of showing an absence of evidence to support the
non-moving party's case. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party
has met its burden of production, the non-moving party cannot
rest on his pleadings, but must present significant probative
evidence in support of his complaint to defeat the motion for
summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).
argues that even though Plaintiff's bankruptcy was
dismissed, Plaintiff lacks standing because her employment
causes of action are ...