Schulman v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC
2:12-cv-01494
D. Nev.Oct 19, 2012Background
- Schulman, a Wynn Las Vegas employee with type I diabetes, sought a day shift as a reasonable ADA accommodation.
- He disclosed diabetes when starting on November 14, 2008 as a night security officer and requested a day shift to manage his condition.
- A December 1, 2009 meeting promised a January 2010 day-shift transfer that never occurred.
- Schulman was disciplined for sleeping on the job in November 2009 and February 2010, with an ensuing investigation and suspension.
- Wynn rehired Schulman in a night-shift, lower-overtime role as an assistant shift manager for public areas, then placed him in retail after further issues.
- Schulman filed an EEOC charge, then sued Wynn entities in district court, asserting four ADA claims; Defendants moved to dismiss as untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the ADA suit under the RTS deadline | Schulman argues receipt date differs from three-day presumption | Schulman failed to file within 90 days of RTS under the presumption | Complaint untimely; RTS presumption not rebutted by Schulman |
| Effectiveness of rebutting the three-day receipt presumption | Schulman provided an affirmative receipt date claim | Evidence insufficient to rebut presumption | Presumption not rebutted by Schulman; delivery presumed May 21, 2012 |
| Judicial notice and consideration of outside materials on dismissal | Court may consider RTS letters and related materials; no conversion to summary judgment necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs., Ltd., 495 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007) (presumption of receipt for RTS letter; rebuttal standard)
- Coleman v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 310 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D.D.C. 2004) (rebuttal of three-day RTS receipt presumption requires definite evidence)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility required for claims)
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard for considering materials in Rule 12(b)(6) context)
- Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1986) (judicial notice of matters of public record)