Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Fielder v. Chs Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

January 5, 2015

DANIEL FIELDER, Plaintiff,
v.
CHS INC., A CORPORATION OF MINNESOTA, d/b/a CHS INC. OF MINNESOTA, Defendant.

AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. McSHANE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Daniel Fielder brings this action seeking damages for alleged disability discrimination under Oregon's disability discrimination statute, ORS §§ 659A.103-145.[1] Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin issued a Findings and Recommendation (F & R) on October 14, 2014, in which he recommended that this Court deny defendant's motion for summary judgment. The matter is now before this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

This Court reviews all portions of the F & R subject to objection de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Machs. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendant timely filed an objection. Upon review, this Court finds no error in Judge Coffin's F & R, ECF No. 49.

As indicated by Judge Coffin, numerous material factual issues are present in this matter. For example, between June 19, 2013 and July 7, 2013, [2] plaintiff did not receive his reasonable accommodation, i.e. a 12-hour break between shifts in order to exercise and sleep, on four different occasions.[3] Although defendant characterizes these lapses in accommodation as voluntary, see Objections to F & R 6, ECF No. 51, during at least one of these lapses, Kenny Evans, defendant's regional operations manager for the western region, [4] instructed plaintiff through Donald Sandbothe and Wesley Edwards to assist in pumping out the fuel mix caused by plaintiff, Decl. of Elizabeth A. Falcone - Pt. 1 28, ECF No. 29-3. There is evidence to suggest that both Sandbothe and Edwards were aware that plaintiff's assistance during this pumping operation violated his accommodation.[5] Thus, this Court finds that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial because a fuller record will afford a more substantial basis for decision. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) ("Neither do we suggest that... the trial court may not deny summary judgment in a case where there is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial." (citation omitted)).

CONCLUSION

This Court ADOPTS Judge Coffin's F & R, ECF No. 49, in full. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 28, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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