Source: http://oh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180404_0000506.NOH.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:54:59+00:00

Document:
University Hospitals Health System, et al., Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants" Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF #25). For the reasons that follow. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
Plaintiff Alison O'Donnell brings this action against Defendants University Hospitals Health System ("UH"). Dr. Naveen Uli, Dr. Sumana Narasimhan. Dr. Rose Gubitosi-Klug and William Rebello alleging claims of Failure to Accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq.. (Count I); Disability Discrimination in violation of the ADA (Count II); Retaliation based on Disability Discrimination in violation of the ADA (Count III); Race Discrimination in violation of Title VD of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.: (Count IV): Retaliation based on Race Discrimination in violation of Title VII (Count V); Disability Discrimination in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4112 (Count VI); Retaliation based on Disability Discrimination in violation of §4112 (Count VU); Race Discrimination in violation of §4112 (Count VIE); Retaliation based on Race Discrimination in violation of §4112 (Count DC) and Aiding and Abetting in violation of §4112.02(J) against Defendant Rebello.
At the time that Plaintiff was admitted to the Fellowship Program, the Program was run by seven UH faculty members including the three remaining individual defendants. In order to successfully complete the Fellowship Program, the physicians who run the Fellowship Program, including the individual defendants, have to certify that the fellows completed the requirements of the program, which are national standards. All fellows must meet those standards in order to complete the Fellowship Program. (Plaintiffs Dep. p. 63-65) The seven faculty members work closely with the fellows as teachers and in overseeing patient care. (Plaintiffs Dep. p. 70-71) In addition, the faculty members conduct annual performance evaluations and advise fellows when performance issues arise. (Plaintiff Dep. Ex. 12) There is a long list of expectations that fellows are expected to meet including treating patients, consulting with other pediatric physicians on Endocrinology issues, self-education of assigned topics, attending and participating in educational and administrative meetings and research. (See Plaintiff Dep. Ex. 5).
On February 11, 2012, Plaintiff sent an email to Claudia Hoyen, in UH's human resources office, with a copy to Mr. Rebello stating that she was concerned that the Fellowship program was not complying with her Remediation Plan as she was not receiving a monthly evaluation and immediate feedback. She stated that she felt that the program was trying to make it so unpleasant for her that she would leave. (Uli Dep. Ex. 31) Ms. Chester from human resources testified that she met several times with Plaintiff to discuss her concerns with her treatment by Program faculty and that she or others in the human resources department investigated all of Plaintiff s complaints and determined that none of them were substantiated. (Chester Dep. pp. 106-109).
Actively participate in all educational sessions of the division, with adequate preparation on assigned topic presentations. Take an active role in educating medical students, residents, nurses and other medical personnel.
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on May 1, 2013.
[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, ' which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). A fact is "material" only if its resolution will affect the outcome of the lawsuit. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Determination of whether a factual issue is "genuine" requires consideration of the applicable evidentiary standards. The court will view the summary judgment motion in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Summary judgment should be granted if a party who bears the burden of proof at trial does not establish an essential element of their case. Tolton v. American Biodyne, Inc., 48 F.3d 937, 941 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). Accordingly, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252). Moreover, if the evidence presented is "merely colorable" and not "significantly probative, " the court may decide the legal issue and grant summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted). In most civil cases involving summary judgment, the court must decide "whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the [non-moving party] is entitled to a verdict." Id. at 252.
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

References: § 12112
 § 2000
 § 4112
 §4112
 §4112
 §4112
 §4112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.