Neri v. Bd. of Educ.

Full title: DANIELLE NERI, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC…

Court: United States District Court, District of New Mexico

Date published: Sep 29, 2022

Facts

This matter is before the Court on a series of motions and supplemental filings: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate her Federal Discrimination Claims, Doc. 140; (2) Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Reinstate Federal Discrimination Claims with Particular Reference to her Retaliation Claim, Doc. 153; (3) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment on Purported Retaliation Claim(s), Doc. 154; (4) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on State Claims and Damages, Doc. 168; (5) Defendants’ Supplemental Briefing in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on State Claims and Damages, Doc. 186; (6) Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 169; (7) Defendants’ Motion to Exclude from Summary Judgment Consideration, Doc. 100; (8) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgments, Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration due to Non-Compliance with Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Doc. 183; (9) Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Order for Defendants to File Other Relevant Parts of Deposition, Doc. 184; and (10)  Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants’ Supplemental Briefing in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on State Claims and Damages, Doc. 196.

The Court referred these matters to Magistrate Judge Steven Yarbrough, Doc. 37, and on September 1, 2022, he issued a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) addressing all pending motions. Doc. 209. The PFRD recommends that the following claims are no longer viable: Plaintiff’s claims under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the state New Mexico Human Rights Act (“NMHRA”) for alleged discrimination based on actual impairment or record of impairment; hostile work environment; constructive discharge; failure to accommodate; and FMLA and disability retaliation claims. This leaves on track for trial Plaintiff’s claim for alleged discrimination under the ADA and the NMHRA based on a demotion because APS regarded Plaintiff as being disabled. The PFRD recommends that for the remaining claim, Plaintiff is unable to recover back and front pay and compensatory damages for her auto loan, moving expenses, and future pecuniary losses, but may seek compensatory damages for emotional distress. On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed her Memorandum in Opposition to the Honorable Judge Steve Yarbrough’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD), filed September 1, 2022. Doc. 210. The plaintiff’s objections are now before the Court.

Issue

Decision

Following its de novo review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PFRD (Doc. 209) and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 210). It is therefore ordered as follows:

• Given the Tenth Circuit mandate remanding a federal claim, the Court no longer declines supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claim;

• Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Order for Defendants to File Other Relevant Parts of Deposition (Doc. 184) is DENIED;

• Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgments, Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration due to Non-Compliance with Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (Doc. 183) is DENIED;

• Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 169) is GRANTED IN PART and the Court reconsiders the Motion to Exclude (Doc. 100) as it relates to Plaintiff’s letter to Ms. Hoppman. The remainder of Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 169) is DENIED;

• Defendants’ Motion to Exclude from Summary Judgment Consideration (Doc. 100) is DENIED as to Exhibit 12 (Doc. 82-12) and Exhibit 14 (page 1) (Doc. 82-14 at 1). The remainder of the Motion to Exclude (Doc. 100) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the motion to exclude (Doc. 100) is DENIED;

• Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate her Federal Discrimination Claims (Doc. 140) is DENIED IN PART as to claims that were dismissed by this Court and affirmed by the Tenth Circuit, and GRANTED IN PART as to those claims reversed and remanded by the Tenth Circuit;

• Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 154) is DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s claim for FMLA retaliation and GRANTED IN PART as to any claims for disability retaliation under the ADA or NMHRA;

• Plaintiff’s request to reinstate her FMLA retaliation claim as made in her Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Reinstate Federal Discrimination Claims with Particular Reference to her Retaliation Claim (Doc. 153) is GRANTED. Her request to reinstate any disability retaliation claim under the ADA and NMHRA is DENIED. Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her complaint to add disability retaliation claims is DENIED;

• Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Purported Retaliation Claims (Doc. 154) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim for FMLA retaliation;

• Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on State Claims and Damages (Doc. 168 with Supplemental Doc. 186) is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s state-law claims for hostile work environment, constructive discharge, discrimination based on actual impairment, back and front pay, and compensatory damages for Plaintiff’s auto loan, moving expenses, and future pecuniary losses. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 168) is DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages for emotional distress; and

• Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants’ Supplemental Briefing in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on State Claims and Damages (Doc. 196) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Surreply in Opposition to Defendants[‘] Motion for Summary Judgment on State Claims and Damages (Doc. 197) is STRICKEN.

Following this Order and the Tenth Circuit’s mandate (Doc. 138), Plaintiff’s only remaining claim for trial is her claim of discrimination under the ADA and the NMHRA based on an alleged demotion because APS regarded her as being disabled. For her remaining claim, Plaintiff may seek compensatory damages for emotional distress based on the demotion.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seven − three =