Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Faur v. Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad Co.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

September 25, 2018

BRYAN PATRICK FAUR, Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO CENTRAL & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LINDA R. READE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         TABLE OF CONTENTS

         I. INTRODUCTION. . ............................................................................ 1

         II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................... 2

         III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ..................................................... 2

         IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .................................................... 3

         V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................. 4

         A. Parties ..................................................................................... 4

         B. Overview of the Dispute ............................................................... 4

         VI. ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 8

         A. Parties' Arguments ..................................................................... 8

         B. Applicable Law .......................................................................... 9

         C. Application ............................................................................. 10

         1. Faur's reasonable accommodation claim .............................. 10

         2. Qualified individual .......................................................... 11

         VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 18

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The matters before the court are Defendant Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad Company's (“CCP”) “Motion for Summary Judgment” (“CCP Motion”) (docket no. 20) and Plaintiff Bryan Patrick Faur's “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” (“Faur Motion”) (docket no. 22).

         II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On June 12, 2017, Faur filed a “Petition and Jury Demand” (“Petition”) (docket no. 3) in the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County. In the Petition, Faur alleges that CCP violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), Iowa Code section 216.6. See Petition ¶ 62. On July 21, 2017, CCP filed a Notice of Removal (docket no. 1), bringing the case before the court.

         On July 28, 2017, CCP filed a Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 4). On March 7, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part CCP's Motion to Dismiss. See March 7, 2018 Order (docket no. 18). The court dismissed with prejudice Faur's claim “to the extent it [was] predicated on his requests for a day-shift conductor assignment or transfer to the [Maintenance of Way (“MOW”)] Division.” Id. at 12. On June 5, 2018, CCP filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses (docket no. 19).

         On July 16, 2018, CCP filed the CCP Motion. On the same date, Faur filed the Faur Motion. On August 6, 2018, Faur filed a Resistance to the CCP Motion (“Faur Resistance”) (docket no. 27). On the same date, CCP filed a Resistance to the Faur Motion (“CCP Resistance”) (docket no. 29). On August 13, 2018, Faur filed a Reply to the CCP Resistance (“Faur Reply”) (docket no. 30). On the same date, CCP filed a Reply to the Faur Resistance (“CCP Reply”) (docket no. 32). Neither party has requested oral argument, and the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.

         III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

         The court has original jurisdiction over Faur's claim arising under the ADA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Faur's claim arising under the ICRA because it is so related to the claim within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[T]he district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. . . .”).

         IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Summary judgment is proper ‘if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show'” an absence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Hilde v. City of Eveleth, 777 F.3d 998, 1003 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). “A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case.” Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc., 826 F.3d 1149, 1157 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Gazal v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 647 F.3d 833, 837-38 (8th Cir. 2011)). “The movant ‘bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,' and must identify ‘those portions of [the record] . . . which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'” Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.