United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
G. Carr Sr. U.S. District Judge
employment-discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.,
and analogous provisions of Ohio law comes before me on
review of the docket.
Jessie Adam filed this suit in February, 2019, alleging that
her former employer, defendant Airway Manufacturing Company
(Airway), did not respond to or address her complaints of
sexual harassment, discriminated against her on the basis of
sex, and retaliated against her for challenging that
harassment and discrimination (as well as alleged
“color discrimination”). (Doc. 1, PageID 3-8).
served the complaint on Airway by certified mail on March 18,
2019. (Docs. 3, 4). Since then, Airway has not filed an
appearance or answered the complaint.
24, 2019, Adam filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 5).
The motion (to which Airway also made no response) contends
that Airway failed to respond to Adam's requests for
admissions, and that this failure operates as an admission,
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3), of all matters into which
Adam's requests had inquired. Adam therefore argues that
she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her Title
VII and state-law discrimination claims and to recover $120,
000 in emotional-distress damages, $60, 000 in economic
damages, $50, 000 in non-economic damages, $40, 000 in
attorney's fees, and $50, 000 in punitive damages.
judgment is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 where the
opposing party fails to show the existence of an essential
element for which that party bears the burden of
proof.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986).
movant must initially show the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Id. at 323. Once the movant carries
its burden, the “burden shifts to the nonmoving party
[to] set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine
issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). Rule 56 “requires
the nonmoving party to go beyond the [unverified]
pleadings” and submit admissible evidence supporting
its position. Celotex, supra, 477 U.S. at
district court may not grant summary judgment “solely
because the non-moving party has failed to respond to the
motion.” Miller v. Shore Fin. Servs., Inc.,
141 Fed.Appx. 417, 419 (6th Cir. 2002). If the non-movant has
failed to respond, the court cannot grant summary judgment
unless it finds that “the motion and supporting
materials - including the facts considered undisputed - show
that the movant is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
party may serve on any other party a written request to
admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of
any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)[.]”
Rule 36, “[a] matter is deemed admitted unless, within
30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is
directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or
objection addressed to the matter[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P.
36(a)(3). Any matter “admitted under this rule is
conclusively established unless the court on motion permits
withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
Liability and Damages
the record shows that Adam served her requests for admission
on Airway, via certified mail addressed to “Airway
Manufacturing Co., c/o Andy Weaver, ” at its facility
in Edgerton, Ohio, on ...