Opinion
CAUSE NO.: 2:96-CV-488-TS
July 17, 2000
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant East Chicago Federation of Teachers, Local 511, AFL-CIO (the "Union") on January 31, 2000. The Plaintiff did not file a Response to the Union's Motion. At the oral arguments, which were conducted on the cross motions for summary judgment, on June 27, 2000, the Plaintiff indicated that he had no objection to the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment and did not intend to file a Response. For the following reasons, the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.
STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
"[S]ummary judgment is appropriate — in fact, is mandated — where there are no disputed issues of material fact and the movant must prevail as a matter of law. In other words, the record must reveal that `no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.'"Dempsey v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 16 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). "The burden rests squarely with the party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Doe v. R.R. Donnelley Sons Co., 42 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).
The initial burden on the moving party requires that party to demonstrate, "with or without supporting affidavits," the absence of genuine issues of material fact and that judgment as a matter of law should be granted in the moving party's favor. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). A question of material fact is a question which will be outcome determinative of an issue in the case, and the facts material in a specific case are determined by the substantive law controlling the given issue or case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Once the moving party has met the initial burden, the opposing party must "go beyond the pleadings" and designate specific facts which prove that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. The court views the facts presented on a motion for summary judgment in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving all doubts in favor of that party. Doe, 42 F.3d at 443. "On the other hand, summary judgment must be entered `against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Id. (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23). In all of this, "the judge's role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact." Id.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), the party opposing the motion
may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The Seventh Circuit has expressly endorsed the "exacting obligation" that this rule imposes on parties opposing summary judgement. See Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 921-22 (7th Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
The Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, supported by an Affidavit by Federation president Victoria Candelaria, argues that as a matter of law a union is not liable for damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., as the ADEA expressly incorporates the remedies of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. A recent opinion from our District, written by Judge Miller, addressed this very question in a Memorandum and Order issued on January 30, 1998. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Middlebury Cmty. Sch. Corp., Number 3:97-CV-18-RM (January 30, 1998). Judge Miller found that the FLSA places liability for monetary damages on the employer, 29 U.S.C. § 216, but exempts by definition the union from such liability, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d). Middlebury, at 5-6 (citing Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 713 F.2d 940, 957 (2d Cir. 1983)).
Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly states that if an adverse party does not respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against that party. As this Court believes that the Union is entitled to summary judgment, and the Plaintiff has indicated he has no objection to the Union's Motion, this Court finds that the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, judgment is hereby GRANTED in favor of Defendant East Chicago Federation of Teachers, Local 511, AFL-CIO, and against the Plaintiff, Anthony Lenzo. This cause is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant East Chicago Federation of Teachers, Local 511, AFL-CIO.