Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_15-cv-01221/USCOURTS-alnd-7_15-cv-01221-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
31 W Insulation Company
Defendant
LaShaunetta C Modley
Plaintiff

Document Text:

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Before the Court is Defendant 31 W Insulation Company’s (“WIC”) 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51). Plaintiff, LaShaunetta C. Modley 

(“Modley”) brought this action alleging employment discrimination under 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Americans With 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). However, Modley’s 

claims under Title VII were voluntarily dismissed on March 29, 2016. 

Therefore, only Modley’s claims under the ADA remain pending. For the 

reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion is due to be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

WIC is a company engaged in the business of “home improvement 

services.” (Simpkins Dec. ¶ 3.) WIC maintained an office in Tuscaloosa, 

LASHAUNETTA C MODLEY,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

31 W INSULATION COMPANY,

Defendant.

7:15-cv-01221-LSC

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

FILED

 2017 Feb-14 PM 02:14

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10

Alabama, where Modley worked as a full-time secretary from January 

2014 until her termination in May 2014. Modley and a Branch Manager 

were the only individuals who worked at the office regularly, and the 

Branch Manager was often away from the office visiting job sites. The 

Branch Manager reported to Regional Managers, Mark Edge (“Edge”) and 

Johnny Simpkins (“Simpkins”), who typically worked in Tuscaloosa about 

once a week—mostly at job sites. (Dobbs Dec. ¶ 5.) While Modley worked 

for WIC, the Branch Manager in Tuscaloosa was first Mark Araujo 

(“Araujo”)—until February 2014—and then Chris Dobbs (“Dobbs”). 

Modley has been diagnosed with bipolar depression, anxiety, and PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and takes medication for all those 

conditions. She also testified that she was diagnosed with ADHD as a 

child, but she never took medication for that condition. Modley testified 

that her mental illnesses cause her to have unstable moods, suicidal 

thoughts, feelings of worthlessness, loss of focus, episodes of irritability, 

lack of motivation, and struggles with understanding simple instructions. 

She also said that because of her illness, she needs to be alone 

sometimes, and that there are days when her health causes her to “move 

slowly.” (Modley Dep. at 89-94.) The frequency of these symptoms 

appears to vary depending on circumstances in Modley’s life. Due to her 

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10

disabilities, Modley has been receiving Social Security benefits since 

2010. In its proceedings, the Social Security Administration determined 

that Modley can only work “20 something” hours a week. While she has 

tried to work, and has had a variety of jobs, she has been unable to keep 

any of them for longer than four months. 

Modley was trained for her secretarial position in Atlanta over a fiveday period. However, Modley testified that these days were not full work 

days, and that the training that she received was “poor,” and too focused 

on filing instead of data entry. (Modley Dep. at 208.) At this training, she 

was given a binder with pictures and instructions on how to complete her 

tasks. Yet, Modley testified that the binder was “horrible” and the “the 

worst instructions [she] had ever seen.” (Modley Dep. at 287.) Simpkins 

also personally provided training by standing behind her desk and showing 

her how to complete her work, but Modley claims that she found him 

intimidating and could not learn that way. 

Among other duties, Modley was required to answer the phones, fill 

out new hire packets, file paperwork, and enter data into the company’s 

software—including employee time cards, payroll, and billing. She 

admitted that she “had problems” and made repeated mistakes in filing

out the new hire packets and probably “mess[ed] up” billing data because 

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10

she did not understand how the system worked. She also admitted that 

she sometimes entered the wrong time card information in the computer 

system, but claims that it was not her responsibility, but rather the 

manager’s, to make sure that the time card information was entered 

accurately. Further, Modley was occasionally late in submitting payroll 

information, which delayed the company’s ability to pay its employees. 

However, Modley testified that her lateness was sometimes due to

computer problems or Dobbs’s own lateness in submitting paperwork for 

her to enter. WIC also claims that Modley was confrontational and 

aggressive at work, and that she did not get along well with her coworkers. Indeed, when Dobbs asked her to forward his calls, Modley told 

him that it was his job to forward calls, and not hers. 

On February 11, 2014, Modley showed Araujo a note that said “I . . . 

suffer with a disability that may cause clerical mistakes . . . during my 

employment.”1 (Modley Dep. at Ex. 16.) She claims that she also told 

Edge about her condition, and that she asked him for more training and 

to be more patient with her and understand that, because of her 

disability, she would repeatedly make the same clerical mistakes. She 

also claims that she told Simpkins that she had a disability and needed 

 

1 Modley also testified that she placed this note in her file. However, her testimony is 

inconsistent about whether the note remained in her file or was removed. 

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10

more training. Modley explained that the enhanced training she needed 

was someone “right there beside” her while she worked, so that her 

mistakes could be corrected instantly. Modley testified that while this 

“training” would not have to be permanent, it might be extensive. 

(Modley Dep. at 257.) Modley testified that with training she “eventually” 

would be able to do her work. (Modley Dep. at 228.) However, she 

admitted that she could not be sure that even with further training, she 

would not continue to make mistakes, because “that’s part of my 

disability.” (Modley Dep. at 228.)

WIC responded to these mistakes by sending Modley various emails in 

which she was advised to check her work more carefully and pay more 

attention before she submitted information. WIC claims that Modley was 

issued a written warning on March 18, 2014 for her failure to enter data 

correctly. Modley testified that she never received such a warning and 

that she believes it to be falsified. However, she admitted that WIC 

management often spoke to her about her errors and how to fix them. 

Modley was terminated on May 22, 2014, after she had multiple issues 

entering payroll information that morning. WIC asserts that Modley was 

fired for her multiple mistakes in entering data and her inappropriate 

work conduct.

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10

However, Modley claims that the problems she was fired for were 

really caused by Dobbs and Edge, and that she was made a scapegoat for 

their mistakes. (Modley Dep. at 272-78.) She also claims that her mistakes 

were caused by her disability and its effect on her focus and ability to 

notice details. After she ended her employment at WIC, Modley wrote a 

fourteen-page letter to WIC’s Human Resources, relating her version of 

events. (Modley Dep. at Ex. 20.) In it, she blamed Edge and Dobbs for 

many of the mistakes she made on May 22, 2014, and said that her 

dismissal was unfair and “discriminatory.” (Id.) However, she did not 

mention her disability or a lack of reasonable accommodation in this 

letter. (Id.) 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Modley, proceeding pro se, filed no response to WIC’s motion for 

summary judgment. Nonetheless, this Court “consider[s] the merits of the 

motion” in order to determine whether summary judgment is 

appropriate. United States v. 5800 SW 74th Ave., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101–02 

(11th Cir. 2004).

Summary judgment is appropriate “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). A fact is 

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 6 of 10
Page 7 of 10

“material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing 

law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). There is 

a “genuine dispute” as to a material fact “if the evidence is such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The trial judge should not weigh the evidence 

but must simply determine whether there are any genuine issues that 

should be resolved at trial. Id. at 249.

In considering a motion for summary judgment, trial courts must 

give deference to the non-moving party by “considering all of the 

evidence and the inferences it may yield in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party.” McGee v. Sentinel Offender Servs., LLC, 719 F.3d 

1236, 1242 (11th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). In making a motion for 

summary judgment, “the moving party has the burden of either negating 

an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case or showing that there 

is no evidence to prove a fact necessary to the nonmoving party’s case.” 

Id. Although the trial courts must use caution when granting motions for 

summary judgment, “[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded 

not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of 

the Federal Rules as a whole.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 

327 (1986).

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10

III. DISCUSSION

Modley claims that WIC discriminated against her for her disability by 

1) terminating her and 2) not providing reasonable accommodations for 

her disability. In order to establish a prima face of disability 

discrimination under the ADA, Modley must show that “(1) [s]he is 

disabled, (2) [s]he is a qualified individual, and (3) [s]he was subjected to 

unlawful discrimination because of [her] disability.” Holly v. Clairson 

Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247, 1255-56 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Modley’s alleged disability consists of bipolar disorder, PTSD, 

depression, and anxiety. The Eleventh Circuit has held that depression is 

a mental impairment. Pritchard v. S. Co. Servs., 92 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th 

Cir. 1996), amended 102 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir. 1996). However, in order 

for Modley to show that she qualified as a disabled individual under the 

ADA, she must show that her impairment “substantially limits one or 

more of [her] major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Major life 

activities include “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, 

seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.” Rossbach v. 

City of Miami, 371 F.3d 1354, 1357 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting 45 C.F.R. § 

84.3(j)(2)). Modley has provided evidence that her disability affected her 

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10

ability to learn and work. Therefore, she has established that she is 

disabled under the ADA. 

However, Modley has failed to establish that she is a qualified 

individual. A qualified individual is “able to perform the essential 

functions of the employment that he holds or seeks with or without 

reasonable accommodation.” D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 

1220, 1226 (11th Cir. 2005). Essential functions “are the fundamental job 

duties of a position that an individual with a disability is actually required 

to perform.” Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Modley has admitted that data-entry work was a large part of her job as a 

secretary at WIC. The data that Modley was entering, including payroll 

and billing, was essential to WIC’s operation, and Modley understood that 

if it was not entered correctly and in a timely fashion, WIC’s operations 

would be disrupted. Entering data correctly was therefore an essential 

function of Modley’s job. 

Modley testified that even if she was given the accommodations 

that she requested, she could not say that she would not continue to 

make clerical mistakes, because making mistakes is part of her disability. 

Further, Modley requested that someone be by her side while she worked 

to help her learn how to do her job properly. However, it is undisputed 

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10

that Simpkins stood behind Modley and tried to help her with her work, 

but Modley did not find it helpful, and continued to make mistakes. 

Because Modley did not provide any evidence that she could perform 

data entry correctly, even with reasonable accommodation, she has not 

established that she is a qualified individual, and has not made out a 

prima facie case of disability discrimination. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment is due to be GRANTED. A separate order consistent with this 

opinion will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of February 2017. 

_____________________________

L. Scott Coogler

United States District Judge

186291

Case 7:15-cv-01221-LSC Document 54 Filed 02/14/17 Page 10 of 10