IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

WENDY MCGHEE,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-20/RS-EMT

SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE of

BONIFAY, LLC d/b/a BONIFAY

NURSING and REHAB CENTER,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me are Defendant‟s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) and 

Plaintiff‟s Response (Doc. 24). 

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56 (c). In other words, the basic issue before the court is “whether the evidence 

presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so onesided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986). The moving party has the burden of 

showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact, and in deciding whether 

the movant has met this burden, the court must view the movant‟s evidence and all 
factual inferences arising from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970); Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 

1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). Thus, if reasonable minds could differ on the inferences 

arising from undisputed facts, then a court should deny summary judgment. Miranda v. B 

& B Cash Grocery Store, Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1534 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Mercantile 

Bank & Trust v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 750 F.2d 838, 841 (11th Cir. 1985)). However, 

a mere „scintilla‟ of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's position will not suffice; 

there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party. 

Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 

251). 

Discussion

A. Disability Discrimination 

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Plaintiff must demonstrate that she 

(1) has a disability; (2) is a “qualified individual” for the position in question; and (3) that 

the employer discriminated against her because of the disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112. See

Enwonwu v. Fulton-Dekalb Hosp. Auth., 286 Fed. Appx. 586, 603 (11th Cir. 2008).

Here, Plaintiff correctly asserts that depression is a disability recognized by the ADA,

Pritchard v. Southern Co. Servs., 92 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 1996), and has brought 

forth sufficient evidence that her depression substantially limited a major life activity at 

the time of her firing (Doc. 23, p.3). 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (noting that caring for one‟s self 

is a major life activity). In addition, Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence that 
Defendant may have discriminated against her based upon the disability. The element 

that Plaintiff has not directly addressed is whether Plaintiff is a “qualified individual.” 

A qualified individual is an “individual who, with or without reasonable 

accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such 

individual holds or desires.” 42 USC § 12111 (8). Plaintiff claims that she did “not 

make any statement or give any indication to Defendant that she was struggling to 

perform her job at the time she was fired (Doc. 23, p. 17).” On the other hand, Plaintiff 

asserts that following her return from leave, Plaintiff had a “substantial limitation on her 

ability to work (Doc. 24, p.8),” which could have been overcome had she been “provided 

with a leave of absence as an accommodation (Doc. 24, p. 5).” It is not entirely clear 

from the pleadings and the evidence whether Plaintiff claims that she was performing the 

essential functions of the position without accommodation, or could perform them with 

reasonable accommodation. However, in either case, Plaintiff has come forth with 

sufficient allegations to raise a genuine issue as to the applicability of the ADA and

Florida‟s Civil Rights Act.

1

B. Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) 

Plaintiff‟s asserts that Defendant violated the FMLA by failing to restore Plaintiff 

to the same or similar position upon returning to work and by retaliating against Plaintiff

by terminating her employment and providing negative references. When viewed in the 

light most favorable to Plaintiff, these assertions are sufficient to maintain a cause of 

action. 

 

1 The Florida Civil Rights Act, FLA. STAT. § 760.10 et Seq., are analyzed under the same framework as the ADA. 

Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263-1264 (11th Cir. 2007). 
Conclusion

It is ordered: 

1. Defendant‟s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is denied. 

ORDERED on October 4, 2010

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE