Jackson v. Federal Express
766 F.3d 189
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Jackson, an African‑American FedEx senior service agent (1996–2007), alleged sexual harassment, racial and age discrimination, ADA/FMLA violations, and retaliation after internal complaints and multiple disciplinary warnings leading to termination.
- FedEx moved for summary judgment after discovery closed, submitting a 124‑fact Local Rule 56 statement with citations and supporting declarations and deposition excerpts.
- Jackson, through counsel, filed a Local Rule 56(a)(2) response admitting 111 of FedEx’s facts, denying 13, and opposing summary judgment only on the Title VII retaliation claim.
- While summary judgment was pending, Jackson (pro se) sought to reopen discovery to depose employees and obtain time‑keeping reports; the district court denied the request and granted summary judgment on all claims.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed: it held the district court properly evaluated the unopposed/non‑defended claims under Rule 56, could infer abandonment of undefended claims by counseled parties, and did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by dismissing non‑retaliation claims as "unopposed" | Jackson: district court failed to fulfill its Rule 56 duties (relies on Vermont Teddy Bear) | FedEx: Jackson effectively abandoned those claims by admitting most facts and not opposing them | Court: No error — district court reviewed movant’s record support and could infer abandonment by counseled party and grant summary judgment |
| Whether court must write an elaborate explanation when granting summary judgment on unopposed claims | Jackson: Vermont Teddy Bear requires detailed analysis and explicit findings | FedEx: No talismanic phrasing required if record permits appellate review | Court: Only a sufficient explanation is required; lengthy essays unnecessary when record allows informed review |
| Whether district court met Rule 56’s obligation to verify movant’s evidentiary support for undisputed facts | Jackson: district court failed to verify adequacy | FedEx: movant’s filings contained adequate admissible evidence (deposition, affidavits) | Court: District court satisfied Rule 56 by reviewing and relying on cited record evidence and could consider uncited record material as well |
| Whether denial to reopen discovery (to depose Sylvester and get timecards) was an abuse of discretion | Jackson: conflict with counsel and missing evidence warranted reopening (cites Dunton) | FedEx: discovery was closed, requests untimely, and FedEx had said it lacked the timecards | Court: No abuse — disagreement over tactics is not Dunton‑type conflict; discovery period was ample and reopening would be futile or untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir.) (standard for viewing facts on summary judgment)
- Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2004) (district courts must verify movant’s evidentiary showing before granting unopposed summary judgment)
- Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1997) (only admissible evidence considered on summary judgment)
- Powell v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 364 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (plaintiff’s burden to show specific facts creating genuine issue after defendant meets its burden)
- Miranda v. Bennett, 322 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2003) (district courts need not issue lengthy opinions in every case)
- Dunton v. County of Suffolk, 729 F.2d 903 (2d Cir. 1984) (discusses counsel conflicts requiring relief)
- Bergerson v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health, 652 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2011) (litigants bound by concessions of retained counsel)