United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky
JONATHAN C. BAUM PLAINTIFF
METRO RESTORATION SERVICES, INC. DEFENDANT
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge
matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Metro
Restoration Services, Inc. (“Metro Restoration”)
to alter or amend the Court's March 9, 2017 memorandum
opinion and order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), ECF No. 28.
Plaintiff Jonathan C. Baum responded, ECF No. 30. Metro
Restoration replied, ECF No. 31. For the reasons explained
below, the Court will deny Metro Restoration's motion to
alter or amend the March 9, 2017 memorandum opinion and
Court recounted the facts of this case at length in its March
9, 2017 memorandum opinion. See Mem. Op. 3/9/2017
1-7, ECF No. 25. The Court, however, believes a brief review
of the events giving rise to the claims and the procedural
history of the case would be of assistance in considering the
current motion to amend or alter the March 9, 2017 memorandum
opinion and order.
Restoration is a restoration company that remediates property
after severe weather events. Baum Dep. 53-54, ECF No. 23-1.
In May 2013, Metro Restoration hired Baum as a scheduler.
Id. at 38. Baum's direct supervisor was Patrick
Cahill, Metro Restoration's owner and CEO. Cahill Dep.
33, ECF No. 23-2.
and 2015, Baum began experiencing a number of personal events
that caused him to miss work at Metro Restoration. For
example, Baum and his wife separated in June of 2014 and were
divorced in March of 2015. Baum Dep. 12, ECF No. 23-1. In
December 2014, Baum was diagnosed with an enlarged right
ventricle in his heart and heart palpitations. Id.
at 92; Medical R. 2, ECF No. 23-4. In February 2015,
Baum's diagnosis was changed to additionally include an
atrioventricular block, Mobitz type 1, Bradycardia, and chest
pain. Medical R. 2, ECF No. 23-5.
weekend of Friday, April 3, 2015 through Sunday, April 5,
2015, there were a number of weather-related, catastrophic
events that created business for Metro Restoration but during
which Baum did not work at Metro Restoration's office.
Id. at 57, 63-65. Four days later, on April 8, 2015,
Cahill terminated Baum from his position as a scheduler.
Id. at 84-85.
sued Metro Restoration in the Jefferson County, Kentucky
Circuit Court for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq., the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA), Ky. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 344.010, et seq., and the Kentucky
Equal Opportunities Act (KEOA), Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
207.130, et seq. Compl., ECF No. 1-3. Baum asserted
that (1) he was a qualified person with a disability because
of his heart condition, which substantially limited him in
the major life activities of lifting and working, as well as
his circulatory and cardiovascular systems, and because he
was “regarded as” a person with a disability, (2)
Metro Restoration failed and refused to provide reasonable
accommodations for his return to work despite his requests to
do so, (3) his being a qualified person with a disability
motivated Metro Restoration's decision to terminate him,
and (4) these actions violated the ADA's and the
KCRA's disability discrimination and retaliation
provisions (Count I). Id. ¶¶ 22- 31. Baum
also alleged that Metro Restoration terminated him because of
his physical disability, which violated the
anti-discrimination provisions of the KEOA (Count II).
Id. ¶¶ 32-36. He sought compensatory
damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, and equitable
relief reinstating him to his former position as a scheduler.
Id. at 5. Metro Restoration removed the case to this
Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Not.
Removal 1, ECF No.1.
Restoration then moved for summary judgment against all of
Baum's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(a). Mot. Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 18. Metro Restoration argued
that Baum did not meet the definitions of a person with a
disability provided by the ADA, KCRA, and KEOA, and thus his
claims failed as a matter of law. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 1,
ECF No. 18-1.
Court granted in part and denied in part Metro
Restoration's motion for summary judgment. Order 3/9/2017
1-2, ECF No. 26. The Court granted summary judgment on (1)
Baum's ADA claim based on the 42 U.S.C. §
12102(1)(A) definition of a person with a disability to the
extent that it involved substantial limitations on his
ability to lift and work, (2) Baum's ADA claim based on
the § 12102(1)(C) definition of a person with a
disability, and (3) Baum's KCRA and KEOA claims.
Court denied summary judgment on Baum's ADA claim based
on the § 12102(1)(A) definition of a person with a
disability to the extent that it involved alleged,
substantial limitations on his circulatory and cardiovascular
systems (“the circulatory-and-cardiovascular-defined
ADA claim”). Id. The Court explained in its
memorandum opinion that summary judgment was inappropriate
because Metro Restoration never addressed the
circulatory-and-cardiovascular-defined ADA claim in its
motion, memorandum of law, or reply. Mem. Op. 3/9/2017 11-12,
ECF No. 25. Metro Restoration thus failed to carry its burden
of demonstrating under Rule 56(a) that there was not a
genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to
summary judgment as a matter of law on the
circulatory-and-cardiovascular-defined ADA claim. See
Restoration now moves to alter or amend the March 9, 2017
memorandum opinion and order under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b), and requests that the Court also grant summary
judgment on the circulatory-and-cardiovascular-defined ...