United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jonathan D. Greenberg U.S. Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on consent of the parties pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 73.1. Pending
before the Court are Defendant Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Plaintiff Michael Gamble's “Dispositive Motions
Summary Judgement.” (Doc. Nos. 49, 50.)
reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
was a bus driver for Defendant Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority (“GCRTA”) from June 2000 - May
2012. (Doc. No. 11-2 at 1.) In May 2012, Defendant terminated
Plaintiff's employment. (Id.) Plaintiff
subsequently filed a disability discrimination charge with
the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission
(“EEOC”) and Ohio Civil Rights Commission in
March 2013. (Id.) In October 2013, Plaintiff
reapplied for his previous position by submitting an online
application. (Doc. No. 11-3 at 1.) In December 2013,
Plaintiff received notification GCRTA declined to offer him a
position. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a second EEOC charge
in March 2014, claiming GCRTA's decision to not rehire
him was retaliatory. (Id.) In June 2015, after
receiving EEOC right-to-sue letters, Plaintiff filed his
first federal lawsuit, alleging disability discrimination
under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). (Doc. No. 11-1 at 1-6.) In September
2015, the Court dismissed the matter for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and further concluded because
Plaintiff's Complaint did not identify a disability, he
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Gamble v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority, 2015 WL 5782073 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30,
February 2016, Plaintiff attended an “RTA Operator Open
House” and provided his contact information to GCRTA.
(Doc. No. 1-2 at 4.) On February 20, 2016, Plaintiff
registered with GCRTA's job application website. (Doc.
No. 52-6 at 1.) On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff responded to
his registration email, declaring “I Applied For The
Part Time Operator.” (Id.) As discussed
infra, Plaintiff did not file anything additional to
complete the application process. Plaintiff was not hired by
GCRTA at that time.
April 2016, Plaintiff filed a public records request for the
names of the individuals offered bus driver positions by
GCRTA in February and March 2016. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 1.) GCRTA
provided Plaintiff with the list of names. (Id. at
1-3.) In June 2016, Plaintiff filed another EEOC charge,
asserting retaliatory failure to hire in violation of the
ADA. (Doc. No. 11-6 at 1.) Within his EEOC charge, Plaintiff
indicated he was “aware of the person who was given the
position and attended training and with less
experience.” (Doc. No. 11-6 at 1.) No other information
about this person was supplied. (See Doc. No. 11-6
at 1.) Another right-to-sue letter was issued on December 2,
2016. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 1.)
February 24, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Gamble, proceeding
pro se, filed this matter alleging Defendant GCRTA
violated the ADA when it did not rehire him in February 2016.
He asserts this failure to rehire was in retaliation for
having previously filed EEOC charges and an earlier federal
discrimination lawsuit. (Doc. No. 1.)
February 9, 2018, following the conclusion of discovery,
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 49.)
On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Dispositive
Motions Summary Judgement.” (Doc. No. 50.) Defendant
filed a response in opposition on February 20, 2018 and
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on March 5, 2018.
(Doc. Nos. 51, 52.) On March 14, 2018, Defendant filed a
Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc.
No. 53.) On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Response
to Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Doc. No. 54.)
parties' motions are now ripe and ready for the
Standard of Review
judgment is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,
A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim
or defense - or the part of each claim or defense - on which
summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary
judgment 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 court should state on the
record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.
Civ. P. 56(a). The purpose of summary judgment is to
determine if there is a need for a trial due to genuine
factual issues which need resolution. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). If, based
on all the available proof, a reasonable jury could only find
for one party at trial, then a trial is unnecessary and the
Court may enter a judgment as a matter of law. See
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986).
See also Barrett v. Lucent Technologies, 36
Fed. App'x 835, 840 (6th Cir. 2002)(“Summary
judgment is appropriate when there are no issues of material
fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.”).
moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating there is
no genuine issue of material fact. The moving party may meet
this burden by establishing the non-moving party lacks
evidence to support an essential element of their case.
Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472,
1479 (6th Cir. 1989.) Conversely, if it is the moving party
who carries the burden of proof for a claim, they may
establish no genuine issue of material fact by setting forth
evidence which would result in a directed verdict at trial.
See Calderone v. U.S., 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir.
1986). See also Kassouf v. U.S. Liability Co., 2015
WL 5542530 at *3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 18, 2015).
the moving party meets this burden, the non-moving party must
then present evidence which establishes genuine factual
issues which require a trial. Celotex Corp., 477
U.S. at 325. The non-moving party may not rest “upon
the mere allegations of their pleadings nor upon general
allegations that issues of fact exist.” Shell v.
Lautenschlager, 2017 WL 4919206 at *1 (N.D. Ohio Oct.
31, 2017). Indeed, the non-moving party must support their
position with “particular parts of materials in the
record, including depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
. . . admissions, interrogatory answers, or other
materials.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). See also
Celotex Corp., ...