Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03111/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03111-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:2601 Family and Medical Leave Act (1993)

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEWAYNE CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE DEPOT, INC.,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 2:11-cv-03111-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff DeWayne Carroll is a former employee of defendant Office Depot. 

Mr. Carroll is African American and is legally blind because of a hereditary eye 

condition. Mr. Carroll began working for Office Depot in 1993. Initially, he was a 

stocker. Office Depot promoted him to the position of department manager in 

2005.1

 Five years later, Mr. Carroll applied for the position of assistant store 

manager. Office Depot did not promote Mr. Carroll. Instead, Office Depot hired 

Darren DeLoach, a white, non-disabled male who had not previously worked for 

Office Depot. Mr. Carroll claims that Office Depot decided not to promote him

either because of his disability or because of his race. On the basis of this conduct, 

Mr. Carroll asserts claims against Office Depot for disability and race 

discrimination.

 1 (Doc. 20-2, pp. 3-4).

FILED

 2014 Oct-20 AM 09:00

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 16
2

Mr. Carroll also contends that Office Depot violated the Family Medical 

Leave Act. In May of 2011, Mr. Carroll took a leave of absence for the birth of his 

child. He alleges that when he returned from leave, Office Depot reassigned him

from the technology area of the store in which he worked to the less-desirable 

office supplies area. Mr. Carroll asserts that the reassignment violated his right 

under the FMLA to be restored to the position he held when he went on FMLA 

leave. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Office Depot asks the Court 

to enter judgment in the company’s favor on Mr. Carroll’s ADA, Title VII, § 1981, 

and FMLA claims. (Doc. 18). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants

Office Depot’s motion for summary judgment.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that 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). To demonstrate that there is a genuine 

dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a 

motion for summary judgment must cite “to particular parts of materials in the 

record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, 

affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the 

motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 16
3

P. 56(c)(1)(A). When considering a summary judgment motion, the Court must 

view the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party. Hill v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 510 Fed. Appx. 810, 813 (11th Cir. 2013). 

“The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other 

materials in the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).

II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Although the Court has not had the pleasure of meeting him, based on the 

record, the Court surmises that Mr. Carroll is a remarkable individual. He has a 

hereditary eye condition that has caused him to be legally blind. (Doc. 20-2, p. 

17). As a result, Mr. Carroll is unable to drive, and he must hold documents very 

close to his face to be able to read. (Doc. 20-2, pp. 17, 121). 

Mr. Carroll’s visual impairment has not hampered his ability to work. 

Office Depot hired him in 1993. Initially, Mr. Carroll worked in Office Depot’s 

Festival Shopping Center store. (Doc. 50, p. 12). Sometime after 2007, Office 

Depot transferred Mr. Carroll to its Eastwood store. Mr. Carroll worked there until

2012. (Doc. 20-3, p. 12; Doc. 50, pp. 17, 22). Mr. Carroll’s co-workers and 

managers were aware of his disability. (Doc. 20-3, p. 19). 

Both store managers and Office Depot customers were fond of Mr. Carroll. 

(Doc. 20-3, p. 39). Mr. Huizinga, the last store manager with whom Mr. Carroll 

worked, testified that customers would come into the Eastwood store and ask for 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 16
4

Mr. Carroll by name. In Mr. Huizinga’s experience, this happened with Mr.

Carroll more often than with any other Office Depot employee. (Doc. 20-3, p. 39). 

One of Mr. Carroll’s co-workers, Stephanie Davis, stated in an affidavit that she 

“never heard any employee, manager, customer, or anyone make any negative 

comments about Mr. Carroll.” (Doc. 49-16, p. 2).

During his tenure with Office Depot, Mr. Carroll adapted to many changes 

in store management. In fact, during the dozen or so years that Mr. Carroll worked 

at Office Depot’s Festival Shopping Center location, the store management 

changed an average of once per year. (Doc. 20-3, p. 47). Despite the resulting 

high rate of employee turnover, Mr. Carroll stayed with the store. (Doc. 20-3, p. 

47). In 2007, Alan Chew was the manager of the Festival store. (Doc. 20-2, p. 8; 

Doc. 20-3, p. 6). On his last day of work at Office Depot, Mr. Chew told Mr. 

Carroll that Carroll would never be promoted because he was legally blind. (Doc. 

20-2, pp. 18–19). 

Rob Huizinga replaced Mr. Chew. At some point after Mr. Huizinga 

became the manager of the Festival store, Office Depot moved the store to a 

location in the Eastwood area of Birmingham. (Doc. 19, ¶ 6). Mr. Huizinga and 

Mr. Carroll worked well together at the Eastwood location. Mr. Huizinga was 

complimentary of Mr. Carroll’s leadership qualities, and he wanted to see Mr. 

Carroll succeed at Office Depot. (Doc. 20-3, pp. 19, 48). In 2008, Mr. Huizinga

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 16
5

nominated Mr. Carroll to participate in Office Depot’s Store Leadership 

Curriculum (SLC). (Doc. 20-2, pp. 7–8; Doc. 20-3, p. 31). Home Depot uses the

two-week SLC program to identify and assess potential management candidates. 

(Doc. 20-3, p. 31). While Mr. Carroll participated in the program, Ms. Stacey 

Monteleone, a member of Office Depot’s regional management team, identified 

areas in which Mr. Carroll needed to improve before the company would consider 

him for advancement. (Doc. 20-3, p. 32; Doc. 49-2, p. 5). 

In 2009 and 2010, Mr. Huizinga ranked Mr. Carroll’s overall performance as 

“Meets Expectations.” (Doc. 49-3; Doc. 49-4; Doc. 49-7). Mr. Huizinga’s 

evaluations pointed out strengths and weaknesses in Mr. Carroll’s job 

performance. (Id.). For example, in 2009 Mr. Carroll received high marks for 

Inventory Evaluation, Profit, Loss Prevention, Integrity, and Inclusion. (Doc. 49-3, 

pp. 2, 4–5, 7). He received below-average scores for Sales, Grow Services, and 

Innovation. (Doc. 49-3, pp. 3, 4, 7, 8). In 2010, Mr. Carroll received high marks 

for EBITDA, Integrity, and Leadership, and he received below-average marks for 

Selling Services and Innovation. (Doc. 49-4, pp. 3–6). The rest of Mr. Carroll’s 

marks were average. (Doc. 49-4). 

In August 2010, Mr. Carroll asked Office Depot to consider him for the 

position of assistant manager of the Eastwood store. (Doc. 20-2, p. 7). He did not 

complete a full application; however, Mr. Huizinga understood that Mr. Carroll 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 5 of 16
6

wanted the job. (Doc. 20-3, p. 27). Mr. Huizinga and Ms. Monteleone, the district 

manager for Carroll’s store, met with Mr. Carroll informally to discuss the 

position. (Doc. 20-3, p. 22). After the meeting, Mr. Huizinga and Ms. Monteleone 

conferred and decided that Mr. Carroll was not ready for a promotion to assistant 

store manager. (Doc. 20-3, p. 22). 

Office Depot ultimately hired Darren DeLoach to fill the assistant store 

manager position. (Doc. 20-3, p. 20). Mr. DeLoach is a white, non-disabled male 

who had not worked for Office Depot before he became assistant store manager. 

(Doc. 20-3, pp. 20–21, 27). While Mr. DeLoach trained and learned about his 

responsibilities as assistant store manager, Mr. Carroll performed one or more of 

Mr. DeLoach’s assistant store manager tasks. (Doc. 20-2, pp. 23–33; Doc. 20-3, p. 

30).

In May 2011, Mr. Carroll took FMLA leave when his second child was 

born. (Doc. 20-2, p. 21). Before he took leave, Mr. Carroll was the manager of the 

technology department in the Eastwood store. When Mr. Carroll returned from 

leave, Office Depot moved him to the office supplies area of the store. Mr. 

Carroll’s job title, pay, and benefits did not change, but in Mr. Carroll’s view, the 

move was a demotion. (Doc. 20-2, pp. 21-22).

On October 25, 2010, Mr. Carroll filed a Charge of Discrimination with the 

EEOC. (Doc. 49-1). The EEOC mailed a Dismissal and Notice of Rights to Mr. 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 6 of 16
7

Carroll on May 26, 2011. (Doc. 1, ¶ 8). Mr. Carroll filed a timely complaint on 

August 24, 2011. He asserts claims against Office Depot for disability and race 

discrimination and for interference with his FMLA rights. (Doc. 1). At the close 

of discovery, Office Depot filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 18, 19, 

50, 51). Mr. Carroll has opposed the motion, and he moved to strike the 

declaration of Stacey Monteleone, a declaration that Office Depot offered in 

support of its summary judgment motion. (Doc. 50, pp. 4–6). The Court heard 

argument from the parties on September 17, 2014.

2

 On this record, the Court 

considers Office Depot’s motion for summary judgment.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Mr. Carroll’s ADA Claim

To prevail on his ADA claim, Mr. Carroll must demonstrate that Office 

Depot discriminated against him. In this circuit, a plaintiff may prove that an 

employment action is the product of discrimination either by introducing direct 

evidence of discrimination or by using circumstantial evidence of discrimination. 

Beatty v. Hudco Indus. Products, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1351 (N.D. Ala. 

2012) (citing Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 1999)). Mr.

 2 A court reporter was present, and a transcript is available upon request.

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 7 of 16
8

Carroll’s discrimination claim rests on circumstantial evidence.

3 Therefore, to 

analyze Mr. Carroll’s ADA claim, the Court must employ the burden-shifting 

analysis that the United States Supreme Court described in McDonnell Douglas 

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Anderson v. Embarq/Sprint, 379 Fed. 

Appx. 924, 927 (11th Cir. 2010). 

To fulfill the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, Mr. Carroll 

must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. This initial proof creates a 

rebuttable presumption that the employer acted illegally. McDonnell Douglas, 411 

U.S. at 802. Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, “the burden shifts to 

the employer to ‘articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason’ for the 

adverse employment action.” Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 976 (11th Cir. 

2008) (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802). If the employer meets this

burden, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to “show that the proffered reasons 

were pretextual.” Gray v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 492 Fed. Appx. 1, 4 (11th Cir. 

2012). For the purposes of summary judgment only, Office Depot concedes that 

 3 The only potential direct evidence of discriminatory intent in this case is former store manager 

Alan Chew’s alleged statement that Office Depot would never promote Mr. Carroll because 

Carroll was legally blind. (Doc. 20-2, pp. 18–19). Mr. Chew made this statement on his last day

of work in 2007, four years or so before Ms. Monteleone decided not to promote Mr. Carroll. 

(Doc. 20-2, pp. 18, 20; Doc. 49-5). In this circuit, “‘remarks by non-decisionmakers or remarks 

unrelated to the decision-making process itself are not direct evidence of discrimination.’” 

Sirpal v. Univ. of Miami, 509 Fed. Appx. 924, 926 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Standard v. 

A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318, 1330 (11th Cir. 1998)). Therefore, Mr. Chew’s statement is 

not direct evidence of discrimination because Mr. Chew did not participate in the decision to hire 

Mr. DeLoach rather than promote Mr. Carroll to become assistant manager of the Eastwood 

store. Additionally, the 2007 statement is too far removed from the 2010 hiring decision to raise 

an inference of intentional discrimination.

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 8 of 16
9

Mr. Carroll can establish a prima facie case of discrimination based upon a failure 

to promote. (Doc. 19, p. 14). Therefore, the Court begins its analysis at the second 

step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. 

1. Office Depot’s Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason for 

Hiring Mr. DeLoach Rather than Promoting Mr. Carroll

As mentioned, Office Depot must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory 

reason for hiring Mr. DeLoach rather than promoting Mr. Carroll. “[Office 

Depot]’s burden of rebuttal is exceedingly light . . . At this stage of the inquiry, the 

defendant need not persuade the court that its proffered reasons are legitimate; the 

defendant’s burden is merely one of production, not proof.” Gray v. City of 

Jacksonville, Fla., 492 Fed. Appx. 1, 7 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation 

omitted). 

Office Depot asserts that it hired Mr. DeLoach to fill the assistant manager 

position at the Eastwood store because “both the District Manager and the Store 

Manager believed that DeLoach was the better qualified candidate.” (Doc. 19, p. 

14). Mr. Huizinga’s deposition supports Office Depot’s articulated reason for 

selecting Mr. DeLoach for the position rather than Mr. Carroll.

Q: And you and Stacey [Monteleone] agreed that that was not –

[Mr. Carroll] was not ready for the position; is that correct?

A: Correct.

(Doc. 49-11, p. 23).

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 9 of 16
10

Q: Did you agree with the decision that [Mr. Carroll] not get that 

promotion in August 2010?

A: Ultimately, with everything going on, yeah, I did.

Q: And tell us why you agreed with that.

A: We had -- I may have mentioned this earlier, had a store visit 

from the regional vice president which caused my manager to 

have to make frequent visits. I had just my -- had my 

evaluation, which overall was a needs improvement. I got 

written up for it. The company seemed to have shift (sic) to a 

whole new level of -- of perfection that was very hard on 

myself and the store. And just kind of looking back on -- on 

everything that’s happened and -- and kind of looking for the 

future, it would have been hard for me to promote DeWayne 

with -- with everything transitioning, you know, with -- with 

the way Office Depot was going.

(Doc. 49-11, p. 49). 

Based on this evidence, Office Depot has carried its burden of providing a 

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for hiring Mr. DeLoach rather than promoting 

Mr. Carroll. 

2. Pretext

Because Office Depot has articulated a legitimate reason for not promoting

Mr. Carroll, the burden shifts back to Mr. Carroll to show that Office Depot’s 

reason was a pretext for discriminatory conduct. “In the context of a promotion, ‘a 

plaintiff cannot prove pretext by simply arguing or even by showing that he was 

better qualified than the [person] who received the position he coveted.’” Springer 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 10 of 16
11

v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp. Inc., 509 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(quoting Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160, 1163 

(11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted)). Rather, “a plaintiff must show that 

the disparities between the successful applicant’s and his own qualifications were 

of such weight and significance that no reasonable person, in the exercise of 

impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff.” 

Springer, 509 F.3d at 1349 (internal quotations omitted). Mr. Carroll cannot meet 

this rigorous burden.

It is clear from the record that Mr. Carroll was well liked by his peers and by 

customers. There were good reasons for Office Depot to consider him for the 

assistant store manager position. Still, on the record before the Court – a record 

which includes inconsistent reviews from Mr. Huizinga and mediocre reports from 

the Store Leadership Curriculum (see pp. 4–5 above) – the Court cannot conclude 

that Mr. Carroll’s evidence regarding his qualifications for the position is such that 

no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen Mr. 

DeLoach over Mr. Carroll for the position. Although Mr. DeLoach had no prior 

work history with Office Depot when the company hired him as the assistant 

manager of the Eastwood store, he had a degree in management from Auburn 

University. (Doc. 49-5). Mr. DeLoach co-owned and managed a family restaurant

for several years. (Doc. 49-5). Additionally, Mr. DeLoach had experience as a 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 11 of 16
12

branch manager for a bank and as a sales representative for a mortgage company. 

(Doc. 49-5). The qualifications of the two candidates are very different, and the 

evidence suggests that both Mr. DeLoach and Mr. Carroll were at least somewhat 

qualified for the assistant store manager position. Therefore, Mr. Carroll has not 

presented evidence that would enable him to establish before a factfinder that no 

reasonable person would have chosen Mr. DeLoach as assistant store manager 

rather than Mr. Carroll.

Citing Clayton v. Golden Bird Acquisition, LLC, 2014 WL 3543693 (N.D. 

Ala. July 17, 2014), Mr. Carroll argues that he may establish pretext by 

demonstrating that Office Depot gave the EEOC false information. (Doc. 50, p. 

26). Mr. Carroll’s argument fails factually and legally. 

Factually, there is no evidence that Office Depot misrepresented information

to the EEOC. In its EEOC position statement, Office Depot highlighted portions 

of Mr. Carroll’s 2009 and 2010 reviews that mentioned areas in which Mr. Carroll 

could improve; the company did not draw attention to the portions of the reviews 

in which Mr. Huizinga gave Mr. Carroll high ratings. Still, the company appears 

to have attached the complete reviews to its position statement, so Mr. Carroll 

cannot support his assertion that Office Depot withheld information from the 

EEOC. (See Doc. 49-2, pp. 5-6, citing Attachments G & H). 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 12 of 16
13

Legally, Office Depot’s decision to focus in its position statement on areas 

in which Mr. Carroll needed to improve is a far cry from the conduct that gave rise 

to a question of fact concerning pretext in Clayton. In Clayton, the Court found 

that, “in its correspondence with the EEOC, defendant’s factual postulates” were 

“outlandish” and that “[d]efendant’s fast-and-loose treatment of the facts continues 

in its briefs before this court.”4

 Clayton, 2014 WL 3543693 at *5–6. This Court 

acknowledges that an employer’s conduct before the EEOC may give rise to a 

question of fact concerning pretext; however, the record in Mr. Carroll’s case 

contains no evidence that Office Depot misrepresented information to the EEOC in 

the company’s position statement. 

Mr. Carroll also attempts to establish pretext by stating that Office Depot 

“fail[ed] to follow its practice of promoting from within.” (Doc. 50, p. 25). “An 

employer’s violation of its own normal hiring procedure may be evidence of 

pretext.” Adams v. Fulton Cnty., Ga., 397 Fed. Appx. 611, 613 (11th Cir. 2010) 

(citation omitted). While Office Depot encourages its employees to apply for

promotion and provides the Store Leadership Curriculum for employees who are 

interested in advancement, Office Depot does not have a policy that automatically 

 4 One example from Clayton is the defendant’s statement to the EEOC that the plaintiff never 

expressed interest in a particular position. 2014 WL 3543693, at *6. The Court stated, “[t]he 

record is clear that plaintiff expressed interest in the . . . position early and often, to just about 

anyone who would listen.” Id. The Court also pointed to testimony from two co-workers that 

unequivocally corroborated this fact. Id.

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 13 of 16
14

gives preference to existing employees in promotional decisions. (See Doc. 20-3, 

p. 26; see also Doc. 49-2, p. 4 (“Because Office Depot believes its associates are a 

valuable resource, Office Depot selects the most qualified candidates for 

promotional opportunities whenever possible”)). Therefore, Office Depot’s 

decision to hire from outside of the company is not evidence of pretext.

Because there is no disputed issue of fact for a jury to resolve with respect to 

Mr. Carroll’s ADA claim, the Court grants Office Depot’s motion for summary 

judgment on this claim.

B. Mr. Carroll’s Title VII and § 1981 Race Discrimination Claims

The Court analyzes Mr. Carroll’s Title VII and § 1981 race discrimination 

claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. See McCray v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 377 Fed. Appx. 921, 923 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Both § 1981

and Title VII are subject to the same standards of proof and employ the same 

analytical framework.”) (internal quotation omitted). To prevail on a claim for 

race discrimination, a plaintiff must show that his race “was a motivating factor” 

for an employment decision. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(m). As noted on the record at 

the hearing in this matter, Mr. Carroll has not provided evidence that Office 

Depot’s decision not to promote him was motivated by race. Therefore, the Court 

grants summary judgment on Mr. Carroll’s Title VII and § 1981 race 

discrimination claims. 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 14 of 16
15

C. Mr. Carroll’s FMLA Claim

“In order to state an interference claim under the FMLA, an employee need 

only demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to a 

benefit that the employer denied.” Jarvela v. Crete Carrier Co., 754 F.3d 1283, 

1289 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Strickland v. Water Works and Sewer Bd. Of City of 

Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199, 1205 (11th Cir. 2001)). The FMLA provides that 

following protected leave, an employee has the right “to be restored by the 

employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave 

commenced” or to an “equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, 

pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.” 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a). “An 

equivalent position is ‘virtually identical’ to the employee’s original position, and 

the position ‘must involve the same or substantially similar duties and 

responsibilities, which must entail substantially equivalent skill, effort, 

responsibility, and authority.’” Rodriguez v. Univ. of Miami Hosp., 499 Fed. 

Appx. 920, 922 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(a)). 

Mr. Carroll claims that after his FMLA leave, Office Depot reassigned him 

from the technology department to the less-desirable supplies department. (Doc. 

20-2, p. 21). The declaration of Office Depot’s Senior Human Resources 

Generalist, LaTonya Rampa, states that at Office Depot, “[a]ll Department 

Managers have the same title and are expected to assist throughout the store.” 

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 15 of 16
16

(Doc. 20-6, ¶ 2). When Mr. Carroll returned from leave, his pay, benefits, and job 

title were the same as they were before his leave. (Doc. 20-2, p. 22). The only 

change was that Mr. Carroll had responsibility for a different area of the store. 

(Id.). Because Office Depot returned Mr. Carroll to an equivalent position with 

equivalent pay and benefits, Mr. Carroll cannot establish an interference claim 

under the FMLA. 

D. Mr. Carroll’s Motion to Strike

The Court did not consider the declaration of Stacey Monteleone in ruling 

on Office Depot’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Mr. Carroll’s motion 

to strike is moot. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Office Depot’s motion for 

summary judgment. The Court will enter a final order consistent with this 

memorandum opinion.

DONE and ORDERED this October 17, 2014.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-03111-MHH Document 69 Filed 10/17/14 Page 16 of 16