HIRLSTON v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
Plaintiff: KAREN R. HIRLSTON
Defendant: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
Case Number: 1:2017cv04699
Filed: December 21, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 205 ORDER DENYING 197 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, OR ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - This matter is before the Court on a Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 59, or in the Alternative, Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60 filed by Plaint iff Karen R. Hirlston (Filing No. 197 ). Plaintiff Karen R. Hirlston's Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 59, or in the Alternative, Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60, (Filing No. 197), is DENIED. (See Order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/17/2022. (AKH)
August 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 192 ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S COUNT II CLAIM: RETALIATION UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT - This matter is before the Court on Count II of Plaintiff Karen R. Hirlston's Complaint; her claim against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation fo r retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (see Filing No. 188 ). Following a jury trial on Count I: Hirlston's claims for discrimination (failure to accommodate and disparate treatment) under the ADA, the jury found in favor of Co stco and against Hirlston. It was determined earlier that Hirlston's retaliation claim would be tried separately to the Court. (Filing No. 136 ). The Court gave Hirlston until July 9, 2021 to brief and submit evidence, if any" and provided Costco "twenty-one days thereafter to respond." (Filing No. 172 at 2.)1 Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial and thereafter, and the now-completed briefing the Court issues its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pur suant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court concludes that Hirlston has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Costco retaliated against her in violation of the ADA. Additionally, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Costco's Motion to Strike, (Filing No. 191 ), as discussed more in depth in this Entry's first footnote. As this resolves all the claims in Hirlston's suit, Final Judgment shall issue in a separate Entry. (See Entry). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/19/2021. (AKH)
June 3, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 163 ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY FACT STATEMENT TO THE JURY. This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Preliminary Fact Statement to the Jury filed by Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco") (Filing N o. 159 ). Costco asks the Court read a statement at the beginning of trial that outlines "the reasons for the November 3, 2015, job assessment meeting" that led to Costco placing Plaintiff Karen R. Hirlston ("Hirlston") "o n a leave of absence." In response, Hirlston confirms that she "does not agree to Defendant's proposed stipulation," therefore, the Court should deny the Motion since "'[a] stipulation is a contract between two partie s to agree that a certain fact is true.'" Here, with no meeting of the minds, there can be no stipulation. As noted by Hirlston in her response, Costco is free to include the proposed information in its opening statement, but there is no procedural bases for the Court to read such a statement to the jury. For these reasons, Costco's Motion is DENIED. (See Order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/3/2021. (AKH)
May 13, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 148 ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO QUASH - The Court GRANTS Costco's Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Non-party Charise McDonald (Filing No. 141 ) and DENIES as moot Costco's Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Non-party James Harmon (Filing No. 142 ). (See Entry). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/13/2021. (AKH)
October 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 126 ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Bench Trial or, in the Alternative, Motion to Continue Jury Trial - the Court DENIES Hirlston's "Motion for a Bench Trial or, in the Alternative, Motion to Continue Jury Trial." (Filing No. 123 .). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/23/2020. (TRG)
October 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 118 ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - For the preceding reasons, Hirlston's Motion in Limine (Filing No. 88 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Costco's Motions in Limine (Filing No. 79 ; Filing No. 80 ; Filing No. 81 ; Filing No. [8 2]; Filing No. 83 ; Filing No. 84 ; Filing No. 85 ) also are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. An order in limine is not a final, appealable order. If the parties believe that specific evidence is inadmissible during the trial, counsel may raise specific objections to that evidence. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/13/2020. (NAD)
December 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ENTRY - DENYING DEFENDANT'S 44 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. On July 3, 2019, Hirlston filed a timely motion contending that Costco introduced new legal arguments in its Reply when it argued that "Ms. Hirlston implicitly concede[d] that the job description for the Optical Department Manager position is evidence of its essential functions." (Filing No. 59 at 7). Costco has not responded to the Motion or otherwise opposed the request. Accordingly, the Motion is granted. The Court will consider Hirlston's response to new legal arguments that are contained in the Surreply docketed at Filing No. 59-1. Because Costco failed to negate the second element of Hirlston's claim, and because it did not challenge the f irst and third prongs, the Court denies summary judgment as to Hirlston's discrimination claim. For the reasons stated above, Costco's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 44 ) is DENIED and Hirlston's Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 59 ) is GRANTED. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/18/2019. (NAD)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: HIRLSTON v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: KAREN R. HIRLSTON
Represented By: Kevin W. Betz
Represented By: Jamie A. Maddox
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?