Case#$1$: wardCase #$1$: Ward v$.$ Publix, Case No$.3$:$14-$cv$-296($N$.$D$.$ Fla. $2016)$

$[$This opinion has been edited by the author for educational use. Edits are indicated through brackets $[]$ or through the following: $***.$ In addition, certain language has been bolded or underlined for emphasis. Unless otherwise indicated, all footnotes have been omitted. In addition, certain case citations have been edited to conform to BlueBook citation requirements$].$

Plaintiff Donald Ward filed $[$this$]$ suit $***$ alleging one count of age discrimination in employment, seeking damages and injunctive relief against Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc. $("$Publix$"),$ pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act $("$ADEA$"),29$ U$.$S$.$C$.621$ et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act of $1992,$ Fla. Stat. $760\mathrm{.}01,$ et seq. $***$ Now pending is Publix's Motion for Summary Judgment $($doc$.34).$ Having fully reviewed the matter, the Court finds that there is a material question of fact precluding summary judgment in this case.

Background $1$

Ward, who is over age $40,$ answered an online Publix recruitment job posting for meat cutter positions in stores throughout the country. On June $5,2013,$ Staffing Specialist Daniel Kammeraad responded to Ward by email, explaining some benefits and career opportunities available at Publix, including Publix's policy of promoting qualified associates from within the company. $[$record citation omitted$].$ Kammeraad encouraged Ward to apply at the local Publix store in Pensacola,