IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY A. HUTCHERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00397-CG-N

)

INTERNATIONAL MARINE AND 

INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS, 

LLC,

)

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 

39), Memorandum in Support (Doc. 40), and Notice of Filing Exhibits (Doc. 41), filed 

by International Marine and Industrial Applicators, LLC1 (“Defendant”), and the 

response (Docs. 44 & 45) filed by Corey A. Hutcherson (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons 

set forth herein, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due to be

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action pro se, alleging claims of discrimination under Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

(Doc. 1, p. 1). The facts that allegedly support such claims are found in Plaintiff’s 

complaint, repeated verbatim below:

 1 Plaintiff sued “International Marine and Industrial Applications, LLC,” but 

the appropriate spelling of Defendant’s name is “International Marine and 

Industrial Applicators, LLC.”

Case 1:14-cv-00397-CG-N Document 53 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 7
2

Plaintiff Hutcherson applied for and was hired by the Defendant, 

International Marine and Industrial Applications, LLC, (IMIA) on or 

about June 13, 2013 as a Sandblaster. On or about June 19, 2013, 

Plaintiff Hutcherson reported for work. He was given a helmet by the 

agent, servant and/or employee to wear while he was sandblasting. 

The helmet did not fit over Plaintiff Hutcherson’s glasses. He informed 

his employer through its agent, servant and/or employee of the type 

helmet he was able to use. He was informed that the only one they 

used was the one that would not fit over Plaintiff Hutcherson’s glasses. 

Plaintiff Hutcherson then asked if he could have a little time to try to 

obtain contacts. He was then asked the question, “you can’t see 

anything without your glasses?” Hutcherson answered “No”, He was 

then told by (IMIA)’s agent, servant and/or employee that they could 

not use him and to go home. Thus, the complaint with U.S. EEOC.

Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff received his Notice of Right to Sue from the United States Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, and this action followed. Id. at 5.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Summary Judgment Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) instructs that “[t]he court shall grant 

summary judgment 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.” The trial 

court’s mission is to “determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial” and not 

to “weigh the evidence.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 

(1986).

The burden is on the moving party to show that there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact. Id. at 256. In conducting its summary judgment analysis, 

the Court must construe all evidence “in the light most favorable to the party 

opposing the motion.” United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962).

After the movant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-CG-N Document 53 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 7
3

“to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to 

that party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the 

nonmoving party fails to do so, the “complete failure of proof concerning an essential 

element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts 

immaterial.” Id. at 323. Further, Rule 56 “requires the nonmoving party to go 

beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is 

a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no 

genuine issue for trial “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational 

trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith 

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

B. Pro Se Litigants

The pro se litigant’s road to trial is fraught with peril. Ever mindful of the 

difficulties that pro se litigants face, a trial court will hold pro se pleadings “to a less 

stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.” Tannenbaum v. United 

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). The court will therefore “liberally 

construe” the pro se pleadings. Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1491 

(11th Cir. 1991). Despite this leniency, pro se litigants must “conform to procedural

rules.” Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002). A pro se litigant “is 

subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). The Local Rules 

of this Court set out the following: “All persons proceeding pro se shall be bound by, 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-CG-N Document 53 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 7
4

and must comply with, all Local Rules of this Court, as well as the Federal Rules of 

Civil and Criminal Procedure, unless excused by Court order.” Gen. Local R. 83.5(a). 

The Supreme Court has recognized that the “rules of procedure are based on the 

assumption that litigation is normally conducted by lawyers,” stating that the Court 

has “never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be 

interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” McNeil 

v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Pro se litigants proceed at their own 

risk.

C. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

The Americans with Disabilities Act states, “No covered entity shall 

discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job 

application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, 

employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of 

employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (2012). “Disability” is defined as:

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or 

more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment . . . .

Id. § 12102(1). An impairment meets the first definition if it “substantially limits 

the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most 

people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (2015). “Substantially 

limits” is to be interpreted “broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum 

extent permitted by the terms of the ADA.” Id. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). The Act includes a 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-CG-N Document 53 Filed 03/08/16 Page 4 of 7
5

non-exclusive list of “major life activities,” including “caring for oneself, performing 

manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, 

speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, 

and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) (2012). The ADA conveniently addresses poor 

eyesight, stating, “The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary 

eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an 

impairment substantially limits a major life activity.” Id. § 12102(4)(E)(ii). The Act 

defines “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” as “lenses that are intended to fully 

correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error.” Id. § 12102(4)(E)(iii)(I).

Plaintiff has not presented any direct evidence of ADA discrimination, so his 

claim will be analyzed pursuant to the burden-shifting framework set forth in 

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 

207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2000). Under this analysis, the employee has the 

initial burden of proving a prima facie claim of disability discrimination by showing: 

“(1) he is disabled; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) he suffered unlawful 

discrimination because of his disability.” Jarvela v. Crete Carrier Corp., 776 F.3d 

822, 828 (11th Cir. 2015). Defendant addresses the first element and claims that 

Plaintiff is not disabled. (Doc. 40, p. 11). Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not 

suffer from a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more 

major life activities of . . . [an] individual.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) 

(2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff has not presented any life activities in which his participation is 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-CG-N Document 53 Filed 03/08/16 Page 5 of 7
6

substantially limited, so the Court is left to speculate. Plaintiff has “20/60 minus” 

vision in each eye, although he has 20/20 vision with corrective lenses. (Doc. 41, p. 

26). In his deposition, Plaintiff conceded that he has no issues driving or reading 

when wearing glasses. Id. at 10. He rides horses, does yard work, tends to his 

garden, drives all-terrain vehicles, and participates in other activities. Id. at 12. 

Plaintiff has worked a variety of jobs with his vision problem, including 

sandblasting. Id. at 13-17. Except for his time with Defendant, Plaintiff’s eyesight 

has not hindered his ability to do any job. Id. at 25. He has never had eye surgery 

and does not regularly visit doctors for his eyes. Id. at 9-10. From the evidence 

offered by Defendant, largely consisting of Plaintiff’s own deposition, it is apparent 

that Plaintiff is not substantially limited in any readily discernible life activity, and 

Plaintiff has not advanced any evidence or argument to the contrary. Plaintiff has 

failed to make out a prima facie claim of ADA discrimination based on the first 

definition of “disability,” so Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this part 

of Plaintiff’s claim.

D. Remaining Claims

Although Defendant’s motion for summary judgment requested that 

judgment be entered against Plaintiff “as to all claims asserted in this action,” the 

motion, memorandum in support, and exhibits fail to address whether Plaintiff’s 

ADA claim fits the remaining two definitions of disability: “(B) a record of such an 

impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” See 42 U.S.C. § 

12102(1) (2012). An employee “may establish coverage under any one or more of 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-CG-N Document 53 Filed 03/08/16 Page 6 of 7
7

these three prongs of the definition of disability . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(2)

(2015). Further, the motion did not address Plaintiff’s claim under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. This latter claim appears to be meritless and perhaps 

frivolous, but the Court will permit Defendant to address the claim rather than 

dismiss it sua sponte. Defendant has leave until March 23, 2016, to file any further 

dispositive motions addressing these remaining claims.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED as to his 

claim made under the first definition of “disability”.

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00397-CG-N Document 53 Filed 03/08/16 Page 7 of 7