Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_12-cv-00645/USCOURTS-almd-3_12-cv-00645-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

GRACE GRICE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:12cv645-CSC

)

SL ALABAMA, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

Now pending before the courtisthe defendant’s motion for reconsideration ofthe court’s

denial of its motion for leave to file supplement to motion for summary judgment (doc. # 37)

filed on July 26, 2013. For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that the motion for

reconsideration (doc. #37) is due to be denied.

On September 26, 2012, the court entered a scheduling order setting a dispositive motion

deadline and a deadline to complete discovery. (Doc. # 11). On May 28, 2013, the defendant

sought an extension of the dispositive motion deadline based on the plaintiff’s deposition which

was set for May 30, 2013. See Doc. # 23. The court granted the defendant’s motion and

extended the deadline for filing dispositive motions from May 28, 2013 until June 24, 2013. 

On June 24, 2013, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in which it asserts that

it is entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff cannot “establish that she was treated

less favorably than any similarly situated employee outside of his (sic) protected class.” (Doc.

# 26 at 12, 18) The defendant also argues that it has presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for Grice’s termination, and that Grice has failed to demonstrate that the reason was

Case 3:12-cv-00645-CSC Document 39 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 3
pretextual. (Id. at 14-17).

On July 9, 2013, the plaintiff filed her response in opposition to the defendant’s motion

for summary judgment. (Doc. # 28 & 29). On July 11, 2013, the defendant filed its motion for

leave to file a supplement to the motion for summary judgment. In the motion, the defendant

sought to raise a new ground for summary judgment and sought to submit new evidentiary

material. (Doc. # 30). In the motion to supplement (doc. # 30) and the motion for

reconsideration (doc. # 37), the defendant contends that because Grice applied for and received

Social Security disability benefits, she cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination. 

The defendant asserts that it should be permitted to present this argument and evidence at this

late date because the evidence is “newly discovered.” (Doc. # 30 at 20). According to the

defendant, the documentation fromthe Social SecurityAdministration reflects a disabilityonset

date of July 23, 2011 which precludes the plaintiff from demonstrating that she was qualified

for her job when she was terminated from it. (Doc. # 37 at 3-5). 

Undoubtedly, the defendant did not discover that the plaintiff was receiving social

security disability benefits until her deposition on May 30, 2013. However, the defendant had

ample time to conduct discovery prior to that date and the dispositive motion deadline. The fact

that the defendant waited until the eleventh hour to take the plaintiff’s deposition does not

justify permitting it to raise a new argument and present new evidence in a reply brief.

More importantly, however, the evidence the defendant seeks to present is, at this

juncture, immaterial. The defendant asserts that the “Plaintiff applied for, and was awarded,

Social Security disability benefits as of the date of her termination based upon her inability to

2

Case 3:12-cv-00645-CSC Document 39 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 3
work.” (Doc. # 37 at 5). A review of Grice’s application for supplemental security income

benefits demonstrates a disability onset date of July 23, 2011. (Doc. # 37, Ex. C at 1 & 7; Ex.

D). The undisputed evidence before the court establishes that Grice was terminated on June

23, 2011, one month before her disability onset date. The evidence presently before the court

demonstrates that Grice was qualified for her position and performed her work well during the

entire time she worked for SL Alabama. Furthermore, “[a]ny events or actions taken prior to

[July 23, 2011], that are subjects of discrimination claims are not barred, as the Social Security

Administration had not found Ms. [Grice] disabled before that date.” Brewer v. Petroleum

Suppliers, Inc., 946 F.Supp. 926, 931 n.5 (N.D. Ala. 1996). Consequently, at this juncture,

Grice’s application for and award of social security disability benefits do not preclude her from

pursuing her discrimination and retaliation claims. Accordingly, upon consideration of the

motion and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (doc. # 37) be and is hereby DENIED.

Done this 29th day of July, 2013.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 3:12-cv-00645-CSC Document 39 Filed 07/29/13 Page 3 of 3