Free Status Report - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv—00337-GIVIS Document 11 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Brian Galbreath, ) U
) r
Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 07-CV-337- Z
) .
v. ) Q
) IRIAL BY JURY
Christiana Care Health Services, ) DEMANDED i
Inc., )
l
Defendant.
RULE 16 JOINT STATUS REPORT E
The parties hereby provide this Joint Status Report pursuant to Rule 16 ofthe Federal Rules of l
Civil Procedure and state as follows: .
1. Jurisdiction & Service: The parties agree that this matter is properly before the U
Court and there are no issues regarding jurisdiction or service..
2. Substance of Action: Plaintiffs claims are ofan unlawful employment practice by _
Defendant pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Iitle VII with a concurrent state `
law claim of`a violation based on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff, a nurse, _
was a prior employee ofDefendant who made a substantial recovery against defendant as a result
ofa worker compensation injury. Plaintiff subsequently applied for and in October of 2004 was j
offered a new nursing position with Defendant. After plaintiffhad completed a pre-employment
physical, orientation and all pre-employment paperwork he was contacted by Christine Collins,
Defendant’s Director of Employee Health Services, who rescinded the employment offer based
on her determination that Plaintiffwas not capable ofperforming the essential functions ofthe
job. Plaintiffcontends that Ms. Collins discriminated against Plaintiffbased on a perceived Z
disability.
Defendant denies Plaintiffs allegations. Plaintiff was not offered employment based on _
its good faith assessment that Plaintiffcould not perform the essential functions ofthe RN
position for which he applied, with or without reasonable accommodation. ;_
3. Identification of Issues:
a. Was Plaintiff disabled within the meaning ofthe ADA?
b. Was Plaintiff a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of
the ADA? F

Case 1 :07-cv—00337-GIVIS Document 11 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 2 of 4 I
c. Did Defendant impermissibly perceive Plaintiffto be disabled within the
meaning ofthe ADA?
d. Did Defendant discriminate against Plaintiff under the ADA? E
e. Can Plaintiffpursue a claim under Title VH? .
f. Does Plaintiffhave a viable state law claim? i
4. Narrowing of the Issues: The parties believe that the factual and legal issues l
between the parties may be narrowed following discovery., `
5. Relief: Plaintiff seeks lost wages and punitive damages. Plairrtiffhad quit his prior
job in order to take the position offered by Defendant. It took plaintiffapproximately 3 months i
to find alternate employment- The _job offer from Defendant was at $26.74 per hour, with a full A
benefits package (Medical and Retirement), available overtime and a 3% raise after three months ·
which would have put plaintiff at $27.54 per hour. The job he found paid $28 .32 per hour with `
no medical benefits and no retirernent plan. Thus plaintiff has ongoing lost wages after he took Q
the alternate position. Plaintiff calculates the actual lost wages at $14,000.00- Assuming a Q
conservative figure for the cost ofthe medical and retirement package at 20% plaintiff has _ [
suffered an additional loss ofbenefits. Assuming an annual wage of $50,000..00 per year a 20%
benefits package represents an additional $10,000..00 loss per year.
Plaintiffalso seeks a punitive damage award as plaintiff anticipates the ability to
convince a jury that Ms. Collins’ actions were willful and wanton. Plaintiff will also seek
attorney fees for a successful resolution of his claims.
6. Amendment of Pleadings: None is anticipated
7. Joinder of Parties: None is anticipated
8. Discovery: Discovery is ongoing. Written discovery has been exchanged and the l
parties anticipate that depositions should be undertaken shortly with a goal for completion by
May of`2008. 3
9. Estimated Trial Length. The parties anticipate a 5 day trial at most and do not
believe that bifurcation will be an efficient way to proceed. It may be possible to reach
additional stipulations based on deposition testimony once those depositions are completed. Q
10. Jug trial: Plaintiffdoes wish for a jury trial.
11. Settlement: The parties have had initial settlement discussions as a result ofthe
EEOC conciliation process. The parties agree that a referral to Magistrate Judge Thynge for
mediation would be beneficial after the completion of discovery.
12. Other Matters: None

Case 1 :07-cv-00337-GI\/IS Document 1 1 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 3 of 4
13. Please accept this joint submission as a statement by the undersigned that they have
conferted in accordance with the Cou1t’s request.

Case 1:07-cv—00337-G|\/IS Document 11 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 4 of 4
R. Stokes Nolte David H VWlliams___
R. STOKES NOLTE, ESQUIRE (#2301) DAVID H, WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE (# 616)
1010 N. Bancroii Parkway Morris James LLP
Suite 21 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19805 P. O. Box 2306 _
(302) 777-1700 Wilmington, DE 19899-2306 ,
(302) 888-6900
Attorney for Plaintiff Q
Michael I. Ossip, Esquire ·
Date: December 20, 2007 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP ¤
1 701 Market St. .
Philadelphia, PA 19103 j
(admitted pro hac vice) .
Attorneys for Defendant
Date: December 20, 2008