CourtCases2010

Pirl was unaware of any disability before he decided

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ph in the moving party's statement" and, in the case of disagreement, to provide "specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record," and any other materials that support the nonmoving party's factual disagreement. Thus, a naked denial of a fact set forth in the Rule 12(M) statement is insufficient and will operate as an admission that the fact is accurate. The unambiguous language of the rule indicates that compliance is not discretionary and, therefore, the Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly upheld the strict enforcement" of its [*9] provisions. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 921-22 (7th Cir. 1994) (and cases cited therein). In the present case, the Department has filed a Rule 12(M) statement in support of its motion for summary judgment that asserts, in numbered paragraphs and citations to the record, those facts in the record that it claims are undisputed. In response, Zihala has filed a "Counterstatement" that disputes the facts set forth in 9 of the 28 paragraphs of the Department's 12(M) statement. In doing so, Zihala simply recites her version of the facts without indicating those portions of the record that support her factual contentions. Notably, while Zihala proclaims that she "strongly disputes" the truth of the reasons her supervisors gave for discharging her and disputes whether Dr. Pirl had knowledge of her alleged disability before he decided to discharge her, she provides her version of the facts without citation to the record. (PP 11, 22). This is clearly insufficient. Therefore, under Rule 12(N), all of the facts alleged in the Department's Rule 12(M) statement are "deemed admitted" to the extent there is support in the record. See e.g., Valenti v. Qualex, Inc., 970 [*10] F.2d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 1992) ("Any facts asserted by the movant and not contradicted in the manner specified by the rule are deemed admitted."). DISCUSSION In her complaint, Zihala claims that the Department discharged her in violation of the ADA because she suffered from bipolar disorde...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online