Adams v. City of Pineland

1

ROBERT A. ADAMS, III, APPELLANT v. CITY OF PINELAND, APPELLEE

No. 12-23-00289-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

May 8, 2024

Appeal from the 273rd District Court of Sabine County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV2113986)

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

Robert A. Adams III appeals the trial court's order denying his traditional motion for summary judgment and granting Appellee City of Pineland's (the City) traditional motion for summary judgment. Adams raises five issues on appeal. We affirm.

Background

Michael Adams^[1] began working on a probationary basis as a patrol officer for the City of Pineland Police Department (the Department or P.P.D.) on May 22, 2020. The Department's written job description for the patrol officer position states, "Under general direction of the Police Chief, the Police Officer will patrol assigned areas to deter crime and ensure the safety of the community; respond to calls and complaints, taking appropriate action." Bradley Turner was the Police Chief for PPD who interviewed and hired Adams.

The City's written policies and procedures set forth that every person initially appointed to city service shall be required successfully to complete a three-month probationary period. It further states, however, that an employee's probationary period may be extended up to three additional months if, in the opinion of the department head or mayor such additional time is necessary or warranted to adequately evaluate the employee. Turner testified that he did not attempt to extend the probationary period because he believed it was six months.

When Adams was hired, he was required to take a drug test before he could begin his probationary employment with PPD. At this time, Adams informed Turner that he suffered from pancreatitis, which caused him a great deal of pain and required that he take Percocet--a combination of oxycodone and acetaminophen--for pain relief. Adams assured Turner that he took the pain medication at night to help him sleep and never took it while on duty, despite his having been cleared by his doctor to do so.

Adams began treatment for acute, recurrent pancreatitis beginning in 2015. From November 2015 until he gave his deposition testimony in April 2022, Adams estimated that he visited a hospital thirteen or fourteen times in response to a "flare-up" of this condition. Adams was treated by Gastroenterologist Kalpesh Patel, M.D. and Neurologist Everton Edmondson, who also has a sub-specialization in pain medicine, and was prescribed Percocet to be taken every four hours as needed, along with a fentanyl patch, which he was unable to wear with a bullet proof vest and heavy clothing and, therefore, which he removed while at work.

On August 3, Turner met with Adams to ask why he was not conducting more traffic stops.^[2]According to Adams, he never previously was given a quota for the number of stops he should conduct. Adams responded that, on some occasions, when he wasn't feeling well due to his pancreatitis, he would not be able to be "as active" as he could on other days. Turner responded that in such a case, he did not have a problem and would not fire Adams over a medical condition.

Adams stated that Turner told him that for simple, vehicular infractions, he could give a motorist a verbal warning, which Adams did on many occasions. Turner confirmed that there are circumstances when, in an officer's discretion, he could issue a verbal warning in lieu of a traffic citation. However, in Turner's opinion, warnings needed to be in-writing to keep a record for racial-profiling purposes. Ultimately, the meeting concluded with Turner's instructing Adams to give motorists written warnings instead of verbal warnings.

Following his meeting with Turner, Adams continued performing his duties as a patrol officer. Soon after that meeting, Turner had P.P.D. Officer Todd Zengerle conduct a "ride around" with Adams to observe his performance. Because they worked opposite shifts, this was the first time Zengerle and Adams worked a full, patrol shift together. Zengerle reported that during the night of the ride-around, Adams parked on the side of Highway 96, a common place to conduct speed and traffic enforcement. Zengerle stated that he would identify cars that were speeding and tell Adams they should pull them over, but Adams just wanted to stay in the car. According to Zengerle, Adams mostly let speeding vehicles pass without initiating a stop and, instead, sat in the parked car and scrolled through his phone for most of the shift, even falling asleep at one point. Zengerle described Adams's behavior during the shift as "out of it" and observed that he did not exhibit the alertness Zengerle expected from a law-enforcement officer while on active duty. Zengerle testified that he kept trying to get Adams to drive around and patrol or, at least, make an effort to stop speeding cars, but Adams preferred to stay parked. Zengerle stated that they stopped one or two cars that night and could have stopped several more if Adams took the initiative to make stops. Zengerle also recalled Adams's making the comment, "if you feel like you ever need to go back to the office to pass out you go do what you need to do[.]" Adams mentioned to Zengerle that he had medical conditions, which Zengerle interpreted as his making an excuse for his lazy behavior, sleeping, and lack of initiative. After the shift, Zengerle reported his observations to Turner.

On September 9, Turner joined Adams on patrol to observe his performance. On September 11, Turner terminated Adams's employment as a patrol officer. In a written statement executed on October 1, in which he memorialized Adams's termination, Turner described his observations during the ride-along with Adams as follows:

Later in the shift after an intense situation with a suspect we were driving back to the P.D. and Officer Adams mentioned that he was in a lot of pain and may need to go to the hospital. I advised him to go to the hospital, but he refused until he was done with his shift. Chief Turner observed Officer Adams to be in extreme pain while typing a report. He left from the P.D. and took his report to the Sheriff's Office where EMS came over and checked him out. Upon this second instance of his pain and not being able to perform his duties adequately, it was determined by me, Bradley Turner[,] Chief of Police, that I needed to terminate his employment based on the fact he physically could not perform his duties and would not want Mr. Adams himself or anyone else to be put in an unfortunate situation due to his inability to perform his duties.

In an Employee Performance Evaluation dated September 11, Turner wrote that Adams was "unable to perform duties at the level expected by the Department. Terminated 9/11/20."

On October 27, Adams sent a letter to Turner seeking reinstatement, to which he attached a copy of a letter dated October 16, 2020, from Patel, in which Patel indicated that Adams was fit for duty. Turner filed the letter and refused to reinstate him.

On January 19, 2021, Newton County Sheriff's Department Sergeant James Hopson contacted P.P.D. in conjunction with its background check on Adams. Turner spoke with Hopson about Adams, and related to him that Adams is a "great guy and did him a good job." He continued, stating, "the only thing that worried him about Adams was his medical" but that he would be "re[-]hireable with the agency if he got his medical figured out and taken care of." Turner further stated that Adams never got in trouble or had any write-up with his agency.^[3]

On September 20, 2021, Adams filed the instant suit, in which he alleged damages due to "regarded-as" disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.^[4] Adams filed his traditional motion for summary judgment on June 20, 2023; the City filed its traditional motion for summary judgment on August 1. Each party filed responses, and the trial court conducted a hearing on the motions on August 22. On October 11, the trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and denied Adams's motion. The trial court rendered a final judgment in the City's favor on November 13, and this appeal followed.

Summary Judgment

In his first and third issues, Adams argues that the trial court erred in granting the City's motion for summary judgment and denying his motion because the summary judgment evidence supports a prima facie case that he was qualified for his position as a police officer and the City terminated him because it regarded him as disabled.

Standard of Review

Because summary judgment is a question of law, a trial court's summary judgment decision is reviewed de novo.^[5] See Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005); Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003); McMahon Contracting, L.P. v. City of Carrollton, 277 S.W.3d 458 467-68 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied). When both parties move for summary judgment and the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the reviewing court should review the summary judgment evidence presented by both sides and determine all questions presented and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered. See Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. 2009). The reviewing court must affirm summary judgment if any of the summary judgment grounds are meritorious. Tex. Workers' Comp. Comm'n v. Patient Advocates of Tex., 136 S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tex. 2004). To prevail on a summary judgment motion brought under Rule 166a(c), a movant must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact...