Arndt v. Ford Motor Co.

247 F.Supp.3d 832

Bradley A. ARNDT, Plaintiff,

v.FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

Case No. 15–11108

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed March 29, 2017

Carol A. Laughbaum, Raymond J. Sterling, Sterling Attorneys at Law, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.

Elizabeth P. Hardy, Julia T. Baumhart, Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton, P.L.C., Birmingham, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 75)

Paul D. Borman, United States District Judge

In this disability discrimination action, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford") violated the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. and the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act ("PWDCRA"), by failing to engage in good faith in the interactive process regarding his request to have his service dog accompany him to work as an accommodation for his Post–Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), and for failing and refusing to accommodate his PTSD, resulting in Plaintiff's constructive discharge.

Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 88), and Ford replied (ECF No. 92). The Court held a hearing on November 28, 2016. Following the hearing on the motion for summary judgment the parties engaged in facilitation, which was unsuccessful in resolving the case. For the reasons that follow, the Court now GRANTS Ford's motion for summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Bradley Arndt served in the United States Army for 24 years, with numerous deployments in combat zones. It is undisputed that, as a result of his military experiences, he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and mild traumatic brain injury ("mTBI"). (ECF No. 75–2, Def.'s Mot. Ex. A, Oct. 28, 2015 Deposition of Bradley Arndt 22:20–24; ECF No. 75–5, Def.'s Mot. Ex. D, February 16, 2016 Deposition of Dr. Carol Lindsay–Westphal 37:3–6.)

Just prior to joining Ford as a process coach in August, 2012, Plaintiff was working as a production supervisor at Faurecia, an auto supply company. (Arndt Dep. 263:12–19.) In the Spring of 2012, Plaintiff commenced a disability leave from Faurecia and ultimately resigned voluntarily from his job at Faurecia. (Arndt Dep. 240:13–241:8, 263:20–264:24.)

Plaintiff started at Ford in August, 2012, and was hired as a process coach (a manufacturing supervisor) at Ford's Van Dyke Transmission Plant. Arndt worked the afternoon to 2:30 a.m. shift in the "clean room" reporting to Vito Evola. (Arndt Dep. 241:13–242:14.) The "clean room" is a climate controlled area of the plant where hourly workers assemble the brains of the transmissions; the parts are susceptible to quality issues and workers wear lab coats. (ECF No. 75–7, Def.'s Mot. Ex. F, October 30, 2015 Deposition of Vito Evola 8:5–15.)

In February, 2013, Arndt approached Evola and explained that he was having issues at work due to symptoms from his PTSD and mentioned the idea of bringing his service dog, Cadence, to work with him. (Evola Dep. 37:12–38:14.) Evola's first reaction was positive—he thought the dog could be "like a mascot." Evola later reconsidered and thought there might be safety or quality concerns. (Evola Dep. 38:18–39:16.) On Saturday, February 22, 2013, Plaintiff sent an email to Human Resource Salaried Personnel Representative Stephanie Roseman explaining that he had missed work the previous day due to his PTSD and mTBI and asking about the possibility of bringing his service dog, Cadence, to work with him. (ECF No. 88–8, Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 7, February 22, 2014 Email from Arndt to Roseman.) In the email, Plaintiff explained what service animals are trained to do, including calming people with PTSD when they have an anxiety attack, and represented that his service dog is "highly trained" and carried a "certification with the ADA" and had "all of his shots." (Id. )¹ The email explained that he was hesitant in making the request because he feared being discriminated against because of his request, which appeared to have no precedent that he could discover at Ford. (Id. ) Ms. Roseman replied to the email first thing Monday morning, February 25, 2013, thanking Plaintiff for trusting her with the information and explaining that she would "do some research on Ford's policies (including issues with service animals in the plant)" and would let him know as soon as possible. (Id. ) Plaintiff responded that evening, thanking her for looking into the issue and asking if she got "any resistance" to please just stop pursuing the matter because he did not want his request to tarnish his name. (Id. )

Ms. Roseman provided Plaintiff with a Disability Reasonable Accommodation Request form, which Plaintiff completed and submitted on February 26, 2013. (ECF No, 88–9, Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 8.) Along with his Reasonable Accommodation Request form, Plaintiff submitted a letter addressed "to whom it may concern," largely reiterating what he had explained to Ms. Roseman in his February 22, 2013 email and explaining the following list of functions that his service dog could provide to Plaintiff in the workplace:

He is trained to sense when an anxiety or panic attack is going to happen, then he is able to guide me and direct me to a quiet calmer place, he is trained to keep people at arms length from my location, he also watches behind me to keep people from startling me as to not set off a trigger from me, provide Tactile Stimulation during intense moments of stress and panic, and "Watch my back," he also provides a great deal of comfort and security when he is near, thus giving me the utmost confidence to perform my job.

(ECF No. 88–9, Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 8 at 2, PgID 3187.) Plaintiff noted on the request form that his request was "time sensitive" because any delay could result in his absence from the work place. (Id. )

On March 13 (or 14), 2013, Plaintiff met with the Van Dyke plant doctor, Dr. Arthelia Brewer, regarding his accommodation request. (ECF No. 75–6, Def.'s Mot. Ex. E, November 4, 2015 Deposition of Arthelia J. Brewer, M.D. 30:19–31:4.) Plaintiff testified that at the March 13, 2013 meeting, Dr. Brewer commented on his extensive resume and suggested that there was surely some position that would be available for Plaintiff, perhaps in Dearborn or perhaps "here" at the Van Dyke plant, and it would all be "open to discussion." (Arndt Dep. 191:24.–192–19.) Dr. Brewer completed a Visit Summary Report summarizing the purpose of the visit, i.e. to discuss Plaintiff's ADA request to bring his service dog to the workplace due to PTSD. (ECF No. 88–10, Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 9, 3/14/13 Visit Summary Report.) Dr. Brewer summarizes Plaintiff's history of PTSD and notes as follows: "(1) Release of information form given employee for completion to allow verbal and written communication with the social worker, psychologist and psychiatrist at the VA. (2) Will work with HR to see if an accommodation can be made. However, there are H&S concerns with allowing a dog in the manufacturing area." (Id. at 2.)

The day after meeting with Dr. Brewer, on March 15, 2013, Plaintiff formally withdrew his accommodation request. (Arndt Dep. 191:5–11; ECF No. 88–12, Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 11, March 15, 2013 email from Plaintiff to Roseman, PgID 3191–92.) Plaintiff testified that he withdrew his request because he received some negative feedback from his supervisor Vito Evola and because he did not want to transfer to a Dearborn location. (Arndt Dep. 199:5–21.) He was "scared of going to a new environment, a new place, a new job." (Arndt Dep. 199:10–11.) Plaintiff testified that after he met with Dr. Brewer he went back to Ms. Roseman and was upset that Dr. Brewer brought up possibly transferring to Dearborn. (Arndt Dep. 183:21–184:4.) He told Ms. Roseman that he had some concerns with "the high population of Arabs in Dearborn," that "seeing people walking down the street in a burka" could cause flashbacks—it presented a "much greater case" for his PTSD than the plant environment. (Arndt Dep. 184:5–17.) Plaintiff had "concern that it would cause [him] undue stress and flashbacks working around a lot of Arabs," and he was "angry" when he talked to Ms. Roseman about the possibility of a move to Dearborn both because he liked his job at the Van Dyke plant and did not want to relocate and because he feared "seeing people walking around in burkas" would set off flashbacks. (Arndt Dep. 185:4–186:12.) Plaintiff testified that he was never formally offered a transfer to Dearborn as an accommodation, but that he and Ms. Roseman discussed it and Plaintiff told her that he was hired to work as a production supervisor, not in the "Glass House" (Ford World Headquarters). (Arndt Dep. 201:1–25.) Ms. Roseman testified that Plaintiff told her he was withdrawing the request because he did not want to be a bother and she told him it was no bother—that they had to engage in the interactive process and that he needed to let the process work and be patient. (ECF No. 75–4, Def.'s Mot. Ex. C, January 19, 2016 Deposition of Stephanie Lovinger Roseman 40:24–41:10.) Ms. Roseman told him if he insisted on withdrawing his request he should put that in writing, and formally retract his request, which Plaintiff did on March 15, 2013. (Roseman Dep. 43:9–12; ECF No. 88–12, Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 11.)

Following Plaintiff's withdrawal of his February 26, 2013 accommodation request, Ms. Roseman sent an email to Maria Conliffe, the Manager of Equal Employment Planning at Ford, to inform her of what had transpired with Plaintiff's withdrawn request. (ECF No. 88–11, Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 10, March 27, 2013 Email from Roseman to Conliffe.) Ms. Roseman explained in her follow-up email to Ms. Conliffe that because there were concerns with having a service animal (even a trained one) in the plant environment, they asked Dr. Brewer to review the request and Plaintiff's medical file and to meet with Plaintiff...