Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03074/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03074-23/pdf.json

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

---

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

Pltf’s Request to Submit Supplemental Evidence in Opp. To Def’s MSJ 1

ROBERT E. GREELEY, Esq. (#194289)

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GREELEY

31 N. Second Street, Suite 300

San Jose, CA 95113

(408) 277-6800

(408) 993-1121 Fax

Email: robert@robertgreeleylaw.com

PHILLIP J. GRIEGO , Esq. (#76616)

ROBERT E. NUDDLEMAN, Esq. (#190269)

PHILLIP J. GRIEGO & ASSOCIATES

95 South Market Street, Suite 520

San Jose, Ca 95113

(408) 295-6341

(408) 293-1959 Fax

Email: Robert@griegolaw.com

Attorneys for PLAINTIFF Christina M. Lester

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHRISTINA M. LESTER,

 PLAINTIFF,

v.

HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA,

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION;

JAMES SILK,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE No. C-04-3074 SI

E-FILING CASE

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT

SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: March 30, 2007

Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Illston

Trial Date: May 14, 2007

)

Plaintiff, Christina Lester, requests the court accept the attached declaration of Dr. Edward

Allen Schlies filed in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dr. Schlies’

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 116 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 1 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 119 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 120 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 121 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Pltf’s Request to Submit Supplemental Evidence in Opp. To Def’s MSJ 2

deposition took place on March 14, 2007, one week after Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment was filed.

During the deposition, counsel for Defendant asked Dr. Schlies about one of the reports he

wrote regarding Ms. Lester. In the report Dr. Schlies noted that because of the traumatic memories

and disturbed relationships with Ms. Lester’s former work setting, he recommended that another

site be utilized. Exhibit A to Martikan Declaration in support of Defendant’s Reply Brief, 60:16-19.

Dr. Schlies explained that it is generally recommended that exposure to a similar but less stressful

workplace be utilized in desensitizing a worker who has workplace-related stress disorders. Id.

60:20-23.

The attorney asked Dr. Schlies if the confidence building and desensitizing “absolutely could not

be done by having [Ms. Lester] work in some different capacity in the same building in Oakland.”

Id. 61:15-18. Dr. Schlies testified that the confidence building and desensitizing could be done in the

same building. Id. 61:19. Defendant’s counsel did not ask Dr. Schlies whether it was medically

advisable for Ms. Lester to undergo the desensitizing and confidence building at her prior facility.

The declaration of Dr. Schlies clarifies that while it was not impossible to return Ms. Lester to

the same facility, he believed it was not medically advisable for Ms. Lester to return to her prior

facility. Dr. Schlies explains that he was concerned that if Ms. Lester returned to the same facility

there was a significant chance that she would lose the progress she had gained to date and cause

more harm to herself, which is why he recommended to the FAA that Ms. Lester not return to

ZOA.

By avoiding the issue of whether it was medically advisable for Ms. Lester to return to the

ZOA, Defendant argues that Ms. Lester could have performed administrative duties at ZOA. Dr.

Schlies’ declaration makes it clear that while it was possible for Ms. Lester to return to ZOA, he did

not believe it was medically advisable to do so, which is the opinion he provided to the FAA.

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 116 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 2 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 119 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 2 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 120 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 2 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 121 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 7
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

Pltf’s Request to Submit Supplemental Evidence in Opp. To Def’s MSJ 3

Plaintiff did not have the opportunity to present this evidence in its reply brief because Dr.

Schlies was not deposed until after Plaintiff’s reply brief was due and the existing evidence clearly

established Dr. Schlies recommended Ms. Lester transfer to a different facility. Plaintiff

respectfully requests this Court allow Plaintiff to submit the attached declaration in opposition to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Dated: March 27, 2007 Respectfully Submitted,

PHILLIP J. GRIEGO & ASSOCIATES

/s/

ROBERT E. NUDDLEMAN, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Christina Lester

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 116 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 3 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 119 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 3 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 120 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 3 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 121 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 7
DECLARATION OF DR. SCHLIES

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 116 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 4 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 119 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 4 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 120 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 4 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 121 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 7
1 ROBERT E. GREELEY, EEssqq (#194289 )

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GREELEY

2 31 N. Second Street, Suite 300

San Jose, CA 9511 3

3 (408) 277-6800

(408) 993-1121 Fa x

4 Email : robert@robertgteeleylaw.com

5 PHILLIP J. GRIE(]O ,Esq (#76616 )

ROBERT E. N'UDDLEMAN, Esq. (#190269)

6 PHILLIP J. QRIEOO & ASSOCIATES

95 South Market Street, Suite 500

7 San Jose, Ca 9511 3

(408) 295-6341

8 (408) 293-1959 Fax

Email: Robertigaw.com

9

Attorneys for PLAINTIFF Christina M . Lester

1 0

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T

12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CAL[FORN] A

13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

1 4

15

) CASE No . C-04-3074 SI

) E-FILING CASE

)

) DECLARATION OF EDWARD ALLEN

SCHLJES, M.D . IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

) SUMMARY JUDGMEN T

)

) Hearing Date : IV arch 30, 200 7

21

) Hearing Time : 9:00 a.m.

Defendants. ) Judge: Elston

22 )

) Trial Date: May 14 . 2007

23 )

24 I, Edward Allen Scillies, MD., declare as follows:

25 1 . [ am a Board Certified Psychiatrist since April 1978 . 1 graduated from Loyola University

26 Stitch School of Medicine in Chicago Illinois in June of 1971 . 1 have 5ecn licensed to practice

27

medicine in the State of California since April 1977 . I have been in private practice in Pleasanton.

28

sallies Declaration

CHRISTINA M. LESTER,

PLAINTIFF,

v .

ICON. NORMAN Y. MINETA,

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION;

JAMES SILK,

1 6

1 7

18

19

20

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 116 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 5 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 119 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 5 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 120 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 5 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 121 Filed 04/03/07 Page 5 of 7
1 California since 1977. As a psychiatrist I served in the U .S. Army 197 ;, as a Staff Psychiatrist and

2 Medical Director at Washington Hospital in Fremont, California, Medical Director of an Addictio n

3

4

Medicine unit at CPC Fremont Hospital, Medical director of Behavioral Health Quest i n

Pleasanton, Medical Director of Inpatient and Outpatient Psychiatry in Noodland . California. I

5

6

served as a medical consultant on the Nursing Diversion Program State of California, I am certifie d

7 by the American Society of Addiction Medicine since 1987 .

8 2. The opinions express in this declaration are based on my observations and formulations i n

9 the course of my treatment of Christina Lester. I have reviewed my written progress notes and

10 reports from Christina Lester's medical treatment record, which supper: the basis of my opinion.

11

3 . On March 14, 2007, I had my deposition taken by an attorney ftr the Federal Government i n

12

the case of Lester v. Mineta, case No. C-04-3074 SI.

1 3

14 4. During the deposition, the attorney asked me about one of the reports I wrote regarding Ms .

15 Lester. In the report I noted that because of the traumatic memories and disturbed relationships with

16 Ms. Lester's former work setting, I recommended that another site be utilized. In other words, that

17 Ms. Lester be allowed to work at a different facility . It is generally recommended that exposure to a

18 similar but less stressful workplace be utilized in desensitizing a worke- who has workplace-relate d

19

stress disorders.

20

5 . The attorney asked me if in my opinion the confidence building and desensitizing absolutel y

21

22 could not be done by having Ms. Lester work in some different capacity in the same building i n

23 Oakland. I accurately replied that the confidence building and desensitizing could be done in the

24 same building . The attorney did not ask whether I believed it was medically advisable for Ms _

25 Lester to undergo the desensitizing and confidence building at her prior facility.

26 6. In my opinion, it was not medically advisable for Ms. Lester to return to her prior lacility.

27

Because of the traumatic memories and disturbed relationships with Mk . Lester's former wor k

28

Schlits Declaration 2

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 116 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 6 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 119 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 6 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 120 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 6 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 121 Filed 04/03/07 Page 6 of 7
20

21.

22

23

24

25

26

27

1 setting, if Ms. Lester returned to the same facility there was an significrnt chance that she woul d

2 lose the progress she had gained to date and cause more harm to herself That is why I

3

recommended to the FAA that Ms. Lester not return to the same facility .

4

7. To use an analogy, it is like a person who has had recent shoulder surgery . The patient

5

6 should undergo a period of physical therapy under controlled circumstances while the patien t

7 rebuilds, strengthens and repairs the shoulder muscles. It is possible the patient could immediately

8 return to her job where she would use those muscles on a daily basis, but the patient's recovery wil l

9 likely be slow and may in fact cause greater harm . Therefore it would not be absolutely impossibl e

10 for the patient to return to work right away, but it is not medically advisable -

11

8 . The attorney also did not ask me what other modifications would have been necessary t o

12

enable Ms. Lester to return to her prior facility . Prior to my deposition on March 141" . I have neve r

1 3

14 spoken with a representative from the FAA regarding Ms. Lester.

I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true

and correct. Executed this date in Pleasanton, California.

Dated: 3k By : - *r **'•

E_ Allen Scillies, MI)

1 5

1 6

1. 7

1 8

19

Schlies Declaration 3

28

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 116 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 7 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 119 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 7 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 120 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 7 of 7
 Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 121 Filed 04/03/07 Page 7 of 7