The opinion of the court was delivered by: Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Michigan Bell Telephone Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #66). Michigan Bell asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Irene Jarvis' Complaint in its entirety.
Also before the Court is Jarvis' Motion for Permission to File a Surreply. (Doc. #75). Jarvis asks the Court for an opportunity to respond to new facts, issues, and arguments that Michigan Bell presented in its Reply brief.
Michigan Bell's motion is GRANTED.
Jarvis' motion is DENIED; the Court does not rely on the material that Jarvis says Michigan Bell first introduced in its Reply brief.
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Jarvis, a 47-year-old woman of Hispanic race and Mexican origin, began working for Michigan Bell on October 23, 1978. In May 1995, Jarvis became an installer assigned to the Rochester garage. In 1999, Jarvis became a customer service specialist.
Michigan Bell service technicians are either provided a van, minivan, or bucket truck as their work vehicle. A bucket truck has a hydraulic lift with an enclosed platform or "bucket" at the end that helps technicians service overhead utilities.
In addition, Michigan Bell assigns employees out-of-town and overtime work. On May 23, 2008, Jarvis filed a Complaint against Michigan Bell pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and, the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA §37.2101 et seq. She claims that despite repeated requests, Michigan Bell discriminated against her by not providing her a bucket truck, giving her out-of-town work assignments, and offering her overtime opportunities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) provides that summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, "the evidence as well as all inferences drawn therefrom must be read in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc., 799 F.2d 1128, 1133 (6th Cir. 1986).
The movant has the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the movant meets this burden, the nonmoving party must, by affidavit or otherwise as provided by Rule 56, "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). A genuine issue of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The essential inquiry is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at ...