Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02315/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02315-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:626 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Stacia C. Hill, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02315-PHX-DGC

ORDER RE JANUARY 19, 2016 

HEARING

 The parties should be prepared to address the following matters at the oral 

argument to be held on January 19, 2016. Answers should be provided on the basis of 

evidence already in the summary judgment record; these questions do not constitute an 

opportunity to present additional evidence. 

1. Plaintiff states: “By mid-April 2012, Plaintiff began to experience ankle 

pain due being on her feet ninety-five percent of her shift.” Doc. 70, ¶ 276 (citing Ex. 1 

at 270:10-271:10; Ex. 3 at 26:11-17)). Defendants contend that the City was not 

informed until July 26, 2012 that Plaintiff’s ankle condition had worsened or that her 

position required her to spend too much time on her feet. Doc. 76, ¶ 276; see also id., Ex. 

56, ¶ 46 (deposition of Anthony Lopez, stating “I never saw Plaintiff limping nor was I 

aware that she felt she was spending too much time on her feet.”). Plaintiff shall be 

prepared to direct the Court to any evidence in the record showing that she communicated 

her ankle-related concerns to the City before July 26, 2012. 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-DGC Document 82 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 2. Plaintiff indicated in her deposition that she began researching long-term 

disability (“LTD”) options in April 2012. She states in her motion for summary 

judgment that she “only elected to pursue long term disability benefits because Defendant 

refused to provide reasonable employment accommodation for her disabilities.” Doc. 69 

at 9. Plaintiff shall be prepared to direct the Court to any evidence in the record that 

shows she sought additional accommodations or alerted Defendant to any worsening of 

her conditions before beginning her research into LTD in April 2012. 

 3. For both sides: What evidence in the record shows when Plaintiff first 

requested that she be permitted to work four ten-hour days? 

 4. For Plaintiff: What evidence shows that Off Duty supervision was more 

sedentary than the front desk job, and what evidence shows that Plaintiff ever requested 

that position? 

 5. Questions for Defendants: Plaintiff states in her affidavit and testified in 

her deposition that she was not aware of the May 31, 2012 meeting arranged by 

Lieutenant Lopez and that the meeting did not concern ADA matters in any event. Isn’t 

it true that the Court must accept these assertions as true for purposes of ruling on 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment? If so, isn’t it also true that Plaintiff’s failure 

to attend the May 31 meeting cannot provide a basis for ruling on summary judgment that 

she was responsible for breakdown of the interactive process? 

 6. Questions for Defendants: The evidence in this case shows that Defendants 

provided Plaintiff with “reasonable accommodation medical questionnaires” on 

June 26, 2012, for purposes of clarifying her medical conditions and assessing possible 

accommodations. Doc. 68, Ex. 8. Plaintiff contends that she returned the questionnaires. 

Doc. 71, ¶¶ 206-208. Isn’t true that the Court must accept this fact as true for purposes of 

ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment? And, if so, isn’t it also true that 

the Court cannot rely upon her failure to return the questionnaires as a basis for a 

summary judgment ruling that she was responsible for breakdown of the interactive 

process? 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-DGC Document 82 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 7. Question for Plaintiff: What specific evidence in the record supports your 

contention that the City failed to engage in the interactive process? 

 In responding to these questions, the parties should be prepared to provide docket 

entry and page cites (i.e., “Docket 70-1 at page 15”) so that the cited evidence can be 

located by the Court in the docket. 

 Dated this 13th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-DGC Document 82 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 3