United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MOBRYDE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
for consideration the motion of defendants, Lifeguard
Ambulance Service of Texas d/b/a Lifeguard Ambulance Service,
LLC ("Lifeguard"), and Air Medical Group Holdings,
Inc. ("Air Medical"), for summary judgment. The
court, having considered the motion, the response of
plaintiff, Michael Bankhead, the reply, the record, and
applicable authorities, finds that the motion should be
25, 2018, plaintiff filed his original complaint in this
action. Doc. 1. In it, he alleges:
began working for Lifeguard in May 2016. Doc. 1 ¶ 11.
Plaintiff was treated differently and discharged after he
became injured on or around January 13, 2017, and presented
his medical records showing that he has Type II diabetes and
some associated complications and needed an accommodation to
recover from an ankle injury. Id. ¶ 12. Other
employees who have had absences were not terminated.
Id. ¶ 22.
asserts claims against Lifeguard under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213
("ADA"), and against both defendants for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
supervision, training and retention, and for wrongful
Grounds of the Motion
maintain that plaintiff cannot establish a genuine fact issue
with regard to any of this claims. Specifically, he cannot
show that he had a disability under the ADEA. Nor can he show
that he is entitled to proceed on any of his state law
Applicable Summary Judgment Principles
56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
the court shall grant summary judgment on a claim or defense
if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The movant bears the initial burden
of pointing out to the court that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. V. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323, 325 (1986). The movant can discharge this
burden by pointing out the absence of evidence supporting one
or more essential elements of the nonmoving party's
claim, "since a complete failure of proof concerning an
essential element of the nonmoving party's case
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial."
Id. at 323. Once the movant has carried its burden
under Rule 56 (a), the nonmoving party must identify evidence
in the record that creates a genuine dispute as to each of
the challenged elements of its case. Id. at 324;
see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) ("A party asserting
that a fact ... is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in
the record ...."). If the evidence identified could not
lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the
nonmoving party as to each essential element of the nonmoving
party's case, there is no genuine dispute for trial and
summary judgment is appropriate. Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 597
(1986). In Mississippi Prot. & Advocacy
Sys., Inc. v. Cotten, the Fifth Circuit explained:
Where the record, including affidavits, interrogatories,
admissions, and depositions could not, as a whole, lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the nonraoving party,
there is no issue for trial.
929 F.2d 1054, 1058 (5th Cir. 1991) .
standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is the
same as the standard for rendering judgment as a matter of
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. If the record taken
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find
for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for
trial. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 597; see also
Mississippi Prot. & Advocacy Sys., 929 F.2d