Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180607_0001748.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:02:44+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Runkle v. Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc.
Runkle v. Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc.
ROSAUERS SUPERMARKETS, INC., BOB BURRIS, and RAY SPRINKLE, Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc., Bob Burris and Ray Sprinkle's Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed, Defendants Burris and Sprinkle's motion should be granted, and Rosauers' motion should be denied.
Runkle began working for Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc. (“Rosauers”) in 2007 at its grocery store in Kalispell, Montana where she worked as a clerk. In January, 2014, Runkle disclosed to Bob Burris, the store manager, that she is disabled due to a mental illness. She alleges Burris thereafter made conditions of her employment difficult for her, and discriminated against her, all based on her disability. She asserts that ultimately she was constructively discharged from her employment on September 18, 2016.
As a result of the discrimination Runkle allegedly experienced, she pursued her remedies with the Montana Human Rights Bureau. Ray Sprinkle, the chairman of the board and CEO of Rosauers' parent company, URM Stores, Inc., was involved in the Montana Human Rights Bureau's investigation. Runkle alleges Sprinkle further perpetuated the discrimination against her through his testimony and involvement in the investigation.
Runkle commenced this action with her complaint filed May 17, 2017. She advances claims against Defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Additionally, because Runkle is appearing pro se in this action the Court must construe her documents liberally and give them “the benefit of any doubt” with respect to Defendants' summary judgment motions. Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 352 (9th Cir. 1999). See also Erickson v. Pardus 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Runkle asserts her claims under authority of Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Doc. 1 at 6, and Doc. 40 at 1.) Title I of the ADA exposes “employers” to liability for discriminating against an employee based on a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Walsh v. Nevada Department of Human Resources, 471 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2006). But the ADA limits the definition of “employers” to those who employ 15 or more workers. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(a). As a result, individuals who are not “employers” cannot be held liable under Title I of the ADA. Walsh, 471 F.3d at 1038.
Burris and Sprinkle move for summary judgment dismissing Runkle's ADA claim under Title I because they are individuals and employees, not Runkle's employer.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12101
 § 12112
 v. 
 § 12111