Goodale v. Elavon, Inc., No. 3:2019cv00409 - Document 112 (E.D. Tenn. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge Katherine A Crytzer on December 9, 2022. (AYB)

Download PDF

Dockets.Justia.com MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIES GRANTS Goodale v. Elavon, Inc. Doc. 112 I. Background A. Factual Background 1 see also see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. Nat’l Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis, Inc. Id. Id. You were talking to Mr. Popwell about discrimination? No, no, no. Id. Id. how our business model is set up The escalations that moved in my direction and when the newer people can’t handle their business Another conversation was, again, the business model of how, you know, how we were doing business in CAM Id. Id. See Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. See Id. Id. Id. Id. see also Id. Id. see also see also Id. See generally id. Id. Id. Id. B. Procedural Background Id. See id. et seq. First Second Id. third Id. See First Id. Second Id. See II. Analysis A. Plaintiff Has Failed to Demonstrate That Spoliation Sanctions Are Appropriate. pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation Billiter v. SP Plus Corp. Adkins v. Wolever See id. See generally Byrd v. Alpha All. Ins. Corp. had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed and Beaven v. U.S. Dep’t of Just. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp. should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation John B. v. Goetz Black v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Red Cross see Ross v. Am. See See Ross Black any See generally Id. Id. Id. See Ross Nye v. CSX Transp., Inc. See see also See Nye See Nye See DENIES See NPF Franchising, LLC v. SY Dawgs, LLC Big Yank Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. B. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Matsushita Nat’l Satellite Sports Celotex Corp. v. Catrett Moldowan v. City of Warren Matsushita see also Cockrel v. Shelby Cnty. Sch. Dist. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. Celotex Scheick v. Tecumseh Pub. Schs. Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. Flowers v. WestRock Servs., Inc. Scheick Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc. See . McDonnell-Douglas See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green Miles v. S. Cent. Hum. Res. Agency, Inc. See Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine Pelcha McDonnell Douglas McDonnell Douglas i. Pelcha Flowers Plaintiff Has Not Established a Prima Facie Case of Age-Based Wage Discrimination. See Nathan v. Great Lakes Water Auth. see also Brown v. VHS of Michigan, Inc. See See Jackson v. Richards Med. Co. See Weigel v. Baptist Hosp. of E. Tenn. See Weigel Id. Davis v. Sodexho, Cumberland Coll. Cafeteria Abeita v. TransAmerica Mailings, Inc. See Weigel Blizzard v. Marion Tech. Coll. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. Willard v. Huntington Ford, Inc. Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Co. see also See See generally See Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc. she see Hollins v. Atl. Co. she See generally See Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Mickey Conti v. Universal Enter., Inc. See id. see also Carey v. Foley & Lardner LLP See see generally See Mickey See See Celotex See ii. It Is Unclear That Plaintiff Has Established a Prima Facie Case of Unlawful Termination. But Even If She Has, Defendant Offered a Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason, and Plaintiff Has Not Demonstrated Pretext. Blizzard Swierkiewicz See Willard See generally See Bates v. Green Farms Condo. Ass’n Wexler McDonnell Douglas See Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc. Wexler see also See Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland Hale v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc. See Blizzard nonprotected employees Willard Mickey younger See Tschappatt v. Crescent Metal Prods., Inc. Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in all respects hav[ing] engaged in the same conduct Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp. see also Ercegovich Macy v. Hopkins Cnty Sch. Bd. of Edu. abrogated on other grounds by Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., Inc. Blizzard See They both talked about they were using [the American Express automated phone number] and they were just concerned that we were released because we were using it Jennifer called it, See See Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. Mitchell See Pelcha See id. See E.E.O.C. v. Lucent Techs. Inc. McDonnell-Douglas See Burdine Blizzard v. Marion Tech. Coll. aff’d a discriminatory reason Burdine Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp. Wexler Chen v. Dow Chem. Co. Miles See Miles Chen Pelcha Miles both and Peters v. Lincoln Elec. Co. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks Id. See Dover See See Brown v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. See see also See Hendershoot v. St. Luke’s Hosp. Loyd Blizzard Miles Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Commc’ns See Pelcha McDonnell-Douglas Peters See Compare Anderson v. Target Stores, Inc. and Pelcha with Willard See Peters Provenzano iii. Although Plaintiff Sufficiently Pled a Retaliation Claim, She Has Not Established a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly see Ashcroft v. Iqbal See See Iqbal Twombly O’Bryan v. US Bank Nat’l Ass’n McDonnell-Douglas See Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc. See Mickey See generally Mumm v. Charter Twp. of Superior Braun v. Ultimate Jetcharters, LLC Blizzard Fox v. Eagle Distrib. Co. See See See See generally Compare Mumm with Balding-Margolis v. Cleveland Arcade Braun Mulhall v. Ashcroft see also Roberts v. Principi See generally See See See Blizzard III. Conclusion DENIES GRANTS

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.