Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Guasch v. Carnival Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

January 9, 2016

BALDOMERO GUASCH, Plaintiff,
v.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          MARCIA G. COOKE United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Baldomero Guasch (“Plaintiff” or “Guasch”) brings this action against Defendant Carnival Corporation (“Defendant” or “Carnival) for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”), Chapter 760 Fla. Stat., and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a). Carnival filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 22), which Guasch has failed to respond to despite multiple extensions of time (ECF Nos. 33, 38). For the reasons below, Carnival's Motion is granted.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Guasch is an HIV-positive male. ECF No. 1-1. He worked as a “Tele-Solutions Specialist” at Carnival from October 16, 2000 through October 9, 2014, handling telephone inquiries related to existing cruise bookings and travel plans. Def.'s Concise Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 1, 4, ECF No. 23 (“Def.'s Facts”).[1] Guasch reported to the Guest Solutions Supervisor-Andres Borrero (“Borrero) at first, and then Hilda Perez (“Perez”)-who in turn reported to the Director of Service, Solutions, and Support, Mitzi White (“White”). Id. ¶¶ 5 -6. Guasch fell under White's supervisory authority starting in early 2011. Id. ¶ 7. He worked from home during his time under White, meeting White and Borrego in-person a handful of times and never meeting Perez at all. Id.

         Carnival maintains phone productivity standards for Solutions Specialists like Guasch. Id. ¶¶ 8 -10. Instances where a Solutions Specialist is unavailable to take calls during a regular workday, such as for restroom breaks or personal calls, are known as “AUX time.” Id. ¶ 11. Excessive use of AUX time on multiple days can result in unsatisfactory phone productivity ratings, and disciplinary actions including termination. Id. ¶¶ 12 - 13. Guasch failed to meet Carnival's phone productivity standards many times during his employment, and was warned about his high AUX time at several monthly and annual reviews. Id. ¶¶ 14 - 15.

         Guasch received multiple corrective counseling notices at the start of 2014 about his excessive AUX time. Id. ¶¶ 16 - 18. This was the first time Guasch received multiple corrective notices in a one-year period. Id. ¶ 22. Guasch then received a written reminder notification of his excessive AUX time in August 2014, followed by a final warning the following month. Id. ¶¶ 19 - 20. Nonetheless, Guasch exceeded his AUX time on three separate days in September 2014. Id. ¶ 21. After an in-person meeting with White on October 9, 2014, Guasch was terminated. Id. ¶ 23 - 24.

         Guasch was approved for intermittent FMLA leave at some point in July 2014, though parties dispute exactly when and whether it was a sufficient amount of leave. While the parties agree to Guasch's history of requesting and being granted FMLA leave throughout his time at Carnival, id. ¶¶ 29, 31, they disagree about whether Guasch's supervisors knew of his HIV-positive medical condition. Carnival asserts that its Human Resources Department does not share an employee's medical information with his or her supervisor. Id. The parties also dispute whether Guasch's earlier AUX time entries were properly adjusted to account for computer glitches and FMLA leaves.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment “shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. In making this assessment, a court “must view all the evidence and all factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, ” Stewart v. Happy Herman's Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1285 (11th Cir. 1997), and “must resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-movant.” United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Life Ins. Co. of Am., 894 F.2d 1555, 1558 (11th Cir. 1990).

         “By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 - 48 (1986) (emphasis in original). “As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. at 248. “For factual issues to be considered genuine, they must have a real basis in the record . . . mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

         “Even in an unopposed motion, the moving party still bears the burden of identifying [the evidence] which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Further, the “district court need not sua sponte review all of the evidentiary materials on file at the time the motion is granted, but must ensure that the motion itself is supported by evidentiary materials.” United States v. 5800 SW 74th Ave., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). After review of the evidence, summary judgment is proper “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. In those cases, there is no genuine issue of material fact “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.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. FCRA Claim

         To establish a prima facie case of FCRA discrimination, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he has a disability; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) he was subjected to unlawful discrimination as the result of his disability.” Gordon v. E.L. Hamm & Assocs., Inc.,100 F.3d 907, 910 (11th Cir. 1996); see also Dulaney v. Miami-Dade Cty., 481 F. App'x 486, 489 n.2 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting how FCRA claims “are analyzed using the same framework as [Americans with Disabilities Act] claims”). “To succeed on a claim of disability discrimination, the plaintiff must show the decision-maker of the adverse employment action was aware of the disability.” Moreira v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 157 F.Supp.3d 1208, 1215 (S.D. Fla. 2016). “Further, neither statements revealing a general health problem nor a general ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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