Gillis v. Amazon.com Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 12, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00803
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 LAURA B. GILLIS, CASE NO. C22-0803-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 AMAZON.COM INC., 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s unopposed motion for summary 16 judgment (Dkt. No. 16). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant 17 record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the 18 reasons explained herein. 19 This case arises out of Plaintiff’s 14-month employment as a fulfillment associate at 20 Amazon.com Services LLC1 (“Amazon”). (See Dkt. Nos. 16-2 at 2.) According to her complaint, 21 Plaintiff has “Bipolar 1 Disorder Rapid Cycling Disability.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) She alleges that 22 Amazon failed to reasonably accommodate her disability and eventually terminated her. (Dkt. 23

24 1 Plaintiff named Amazon.com Inc. as Defendant in this matter. (See Dkt. No. 4 at 1.) 25 Defendant presents undisputed evidence that Plaintiff’s complaint is best directed at her 26 employer Amazon.com Services LLC. (See Dkt. No. 16-2 at 2.) Because the Court is ordering that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice, this error need not be corrected. 1 No. 4 at 4.) Plaintiff is asserting claims based on violations of the Americans With Disabilities 2 Act of 1990 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.2 (Id.) Amazon moves for 3 summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff cannot meet her burden of establishing a prima facie 4 case and, even if she could, she could not present evidence to support pretext, as is required 5 under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting scheme. (Dkt. No. 16 at 6–10 (citing McDonnell 6 Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)).) For the reasons described below, the Court 7 agrees with Amazon. 8 According to Rule 56(a), this Court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 9 that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 10 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the case’s outcome. 11 See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is 12 genuine if there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving 13 party. See id. at 49. At the summary-judgment stage, evidence must be viewed in the light most 14 favorable to the nonmoving party and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non- 15 movant’s favor. See Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2011).3 16 Amazon presents undisputed evidence that, while Plaintiff initiated an accommodation

17 18 2 Plaintiff’s complaint only indicates that Amazon violated “[r]elevant state law.” (Dkt. No. 4 at 4.) Given the liberal standards the Court applies to pro se Plaintiffs, see Erickson v. 19 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), the Court assumes Plaintiff is attempting to assert violations of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination. 20 3 Summary judgment is not proper merely because an opposing party fails to respond. See LCR 7(b)(2); Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1495 n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed motion may 21 be granted only after the court determines there are no material issues of fact and judgment is 22 appropriate as a matter of law). The burden on the nonmovant to respond arises only when the moving party has met its initial burden of production under Rule 56(c). See Celotex Corp. v. 23 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). A court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant’s evidence is itself sufficient to support the motion and does not on its 24 face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. See Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, if no factual showing is made in opposition to a motion 25 for summary judgment, the district court has no obligation under Rule 56 “to scour the record in 26 search of a genuine issue of triable fact.” Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). 1 request with Amazon’s Disability and Leave Services Team, she voluntarily withdrew it 2 following a work assignment change, and that she was terminated by an unrelated department, 3 with no knowledge of her request, for unrelated reasons. (See Dkt. Nos. 16-1 at 31, 37–38, 49– 4 51; 16-2 at 23, 25–26, 31–32; 17 at 2; 18 at 1–3.) As such, Plaintiff cannot support her prima 5 facie case and, for this reason, the Court must grant summary judgment to Amazon. 6 For the foregoing reasons, Amazon’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 16) is 7 GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 8 9 DATED this 12th day of May 2023. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26