Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

The record cites that Plaintiff references to support this statement either do not exist (Doc. No. 35-3, at 57:19-58:11; Doc. No. 35-5, at 72:15-74:2), or do not establish that Plaintiff engaged in any such conduct. Doc. No. 35-17. In addition, Plaintiff cites to Nadler v. Harvey, No. 06-12692, 2007 WL 2404705, at *9 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2007) to support her argument that Defendant did not maintain an interactive process and therefore must be held liable. Doc. No. 43, at 2. But Nadler addresses the question of whether the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis applies to claims for reasonable accommodation, and the word “interactive” is nowhere mentioned in that case. And the Court is at a loss as to why Plaintiff cites to Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526, 536 (1999), (Doc. No. 43, at 21), which addresses whether punitive damages are available under Title VII. 16 Plaintiff cites to Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 1997) and Todd v. ... But Plaintiff submitted no evidence to support these assertions, the email chain between Herman and Valencia nowhere mentions any ADA accommodations or work schedule, and Valencia’s Notice of Dismissal discusses Plaintiff’s own admissions on several of these points. See Doc. No. 35-20; Doc. No. 35-22. -25- Doc No. 43, at 4, 9-12, 19-20. But none of these facts rise to the level of direct evidence as they are susceptible to differing interpretations, and therefore require inferences and presumptions to support a finding of discrimination. See Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[D]irect evidence . . . [is] evidence, which if believed, proves [the] existence of [a] fact in issue without inference or presumption.

Authorities cited in the passage: Plaintiff cites to Nadler v. Harvey, No. 06-12692, 2007 WL 2404705, at *9 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2007) · Court is at a loss as to why Plaintiff cites to Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U · Title VII. 16 Plaintiff cites to Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge Inc., 117 F · See Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F