The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER
Discovery Cut-Off: 12/12/2011
Filing Deadline: 12/16/2011
Hearing Date: 01/20/2012 9:00 Ctrm. 7
Dispositive Motion Filing
Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 2/13/2012 10:00 Ctrm. 3
Settlement Conference Date: 11/22/2011 10:30 Ctrm. 7
Pre-Trial Conference Date: 03/19/2012 11:00 Ctrm. 3
Trial Date: 05/01/2012 9:00 Ctrm. 3 (JT-10 days)
I. Date of Scheduling Conference. November 4, 2010
II. Summary of Pleadings. Plaintiff's Statement
1. Plaintiff was hired as an equipment operator for the County of Fresno on or about February 27, 2006. In or about November of 2007, Plaintiff was assigned to the Firebaugh yard for training. While at the yard, he was assigned to unload a personal trailer belonging to the yard supervisor. Plaintiff was injured during the course of unloading the trailer and reported his injury. At all times subsequent to reporting his injury, Plaintiff has been subjected to harassment, discrimination and has generally been treated differently than other similarly situated employees. Plaintiff alleges he was denied the opportunity to work overtime, was denied the opportunity for promotion, was assigned undesirable work duties, was subjected to arbitrary scrutiny and criticism, was subjected to offensive and vulgar comments and harassment from co-employees, supervisors, and Defendant Godfrey. As a result of the alleged unlawful treatment, Plaintiff claims to have suffered severe emotional distress and developed irritable bowel syndrome, and at all material times, Defendants, with knowledge of Plaintiff's condition, failed to provide Plaintiff with reasonable accommodation for his disability.
2. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the actual statements contained in his Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c).
3. The County of Fresno and David Godfrey (collectively "Defendants") answered the Complaint on July 9, 2010, prior to removal of this action to Federal Court. Defendants generally denied all material allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. The County had legal cause to take the actions it did against Plaintiff and expressly denies that any actions affecting the terms and/or conditions of Plaintiff's employment were motivated by Plaintiff's alleged disability or were done in retaliation for allegedly engaging in legally protected activity. The County further denies that Plaintiff was the subject of discrimination or harassment whether on the basis of his alleged disability or otherwise.
4. The County asserted numerous affirmative defenses, including: (1) failure to state a claim against the County upon which relief can be granted; (2) barred by the statute of limitations; (3) failure to mitigate damages; (4) exclusivity of remedies afforded by workers' compensation laws of the State of California; (5) failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (6) failure to state a claim against the Defendants to the extent the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint enlarge upon the facts and contentions set forth in the charges filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; (7) Plaintiff's willful misconduct and/or negligence proximately caused whatever injury is claimed by Plaintiff; (8) actions of the County affecting the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment were made in good faith and were motivated by legitimate non-discriminatory reasons or as a result of business necessity; (9) all decisions made by the County affecting the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment were just, fair, privileged, with good cause, non-retaliatory and in good faith; (10) the County would have taken the same action it did even if disability were a motivating factor (which the County denies); (11) the County has taken reasonable steps to prevent workplace discrimination and Plaintiff's failure to take advantage of those corrective and preventative measures bars recovery; (12) any claim for lost wages should be reduced by Plaintiff's interim earnings; (13) Plaintiff was not a qualified worker under the ADA and/or the Fair Employment & Housing Act and, if so, Defendants made reasonable accommodations to Plaintiff, or offered reasonable accommodations to Plaintiff that Plaintiff refused; and (14) any accommodation not made with respect to Plaintiff's alleged disability would have imposed an undue hardship on Defendant.
5. Defendants hereby incorporate the actual statements contained in their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint and the affirmative defenses set forth therein in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c).
III. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings
1. The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings at this time. Plaintiff, at this time, dismisses DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, without prejudice.
A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further Proceedings
1. Plaintiff was hired as an equipment operator for the County of Fresno, in or about February of 2006.
2. Defendant Godfrey was Plaintiff's immediate supervisor from approximately June 2007 through the present.
3. Plaintiff went out on unpaid medical leave in October of 2008 and to date, remains on unpaid medical leave.
4. Plaintiff was an at-will employee of the County of Fresno.
5. There was no written contract of employment.
6. Plaintiff's current need for medical leave arises out of his ongoing condition diagnosed as irritable bowel syndrome, which condition has been medically diagnosed.
1. Whether Plaintiff suffered any adverse job action in the terms and conditions of his employment for which his alleged disability was a motivating factor.
2. Whether Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiff's alleged disability.
3. Whether Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation.
4. Whether Defendants denied Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation for any alleged disability.
5. Whether Plaintiff was treated differently than other employees on account of his alleged disability and without business justification.
6. Whether Plaintiff was retaliated against in the terms and conditions of his employment on the basis of his alleged disability and/or allegedly engaging in protecting activity.
7. Whether Plaintiff engaged in protected activity to support a claim of retaliation.
8. Whether the protected activity allegedly engaged in by Plaintiff, if any, was a motivating factor in any decision by the County affecting the terms and conditions of his employment.
9. Whether the County would have taken the same actions forming the basis of Plaintiff's complaint ...