Bradley v. United States Steel Corp.

1

Terrance Bradley, Jr., Plaintiff, v. United States Steel Corporation, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-10923

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

July 6, 2023

David R. Grand Mag. Judge

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [22]

Judith E. Levy United States District Judge

Plaintiff Terrence^[1] Bradley, Jr. brings this employment discrimination case against Defendant United States Steel Corporation following a workplace injury. Plaintiff's claims include discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. He alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), Title VII, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), and the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA).

Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22.) The motion is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 25, 27.) On November 21, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the motion and heard oral argument. For the reasons set forth below Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

A. Plaintiff's Employment with Defendant

Plaintiff is an African-American individual who was hired by Defendant in December 2013.^[2] (See ECF No. 1, PageID.2; ECF No. 25-3, PageID.477, 504; ECF No. 25-70, PageID.874.) He is currently employed by Defendant. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.505.)

Plaintiff works in Defendant's tandem mill in Ecorse, Michigan. (See ECF No. 22, PageID.139.) At the tandem mill, “large metal coils are processed [through five stands^[3] . . . to bring the coil to the proper gauge and to put a finish on the metal's surface, in accordance with customers' orders.” (Id.) Plaintiff first held an entry-level position, but his position since 2016 is “operating technician level one.” (ECF No. 25-3, PageID.504-505; see ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Plaintiff's position is governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). (See ECF No. 22, PageID.139-140; ECF No. 25-3, PageID.505.) Under the “operating technician level one” position, Plaintiff is qualified to do a number of jobs. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.508; ECF No. 25-4, PageID.560.) Prior to the date of his injury, he was working as a finisher.^[4] (See id.)

B. Plaintiff's Injury on October 4, 2019

On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff was an “extra person” at the mill and was told to train as an assistant roller “instead of finish.” (ECF No. 25-3, PageID.506.) Assistant roller “is the second highest job” at the coil is reduced down to the gauge of the stand until the metal coil gets to the final stand where the finish is applied.” (ECF No. 22, PageID.139.) tandem mill.^[5] (Id. at PageID.484, 533; see ECF No. 25-4, PageID.550, 559; ECF No. 25-7, PageID.614.) Plaintiff's trainer was William Bryant, who has been an assistant roller for at least seven to eight years. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.484; ECF No. 25-4, PageID.550; ECF No. 25-9, PageID.637, 639.)

During Plaintiff's training, a damaged wood board prevented a metal coil from going through the mill's second stand. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.508; ECF No. 25-9, PageID.639.) Plaintiff stopped the mill, put certain “safety pins in place,” and notified the roller,^[6] Todd Ellison, who made an adjustment to the first stand. (ECF No. 25-3, PageID.508; ECF No. 25-4, PageID.548, 559.) Plaintiff backed up the metal coil and removed the damaged board. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.508; ECF No. 25-4, PageID.548.)

As Plaintiff was installing a new board, the mill started to run. (See id.) The front end of the coil pressed into Plaintiff's back and then cut into his leg before hitting the ground. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.508-510, 528; ECF No. 25-4, PageID.548, 552.) Plaintiff stated that the mill continued to run, so the steel “was cobbled up to the ceiling because it ha[d] nowhere to go and that's when it pushed me . . . into the guide box which consists of metal clamps.” (ECF No. 25-3, PageID.510.) At that point, Plaintiff was able to grab his radio and screamed for help. (See id.) Bryant came over, and the steel was “reverse[d].” (Id.)

Plaintiff was carried out of the mill and was taken by ambulance to Henry Ford Health System in Wyandotte. (See id.; ECF No. 25-12, PageID.668.) Plaintiff was injured in “the area right behind where [his] knee bends.” (ECF No. 25-3, PageID.524.) At the hospital, Plaintiff's laceration was “stitch[ed] up,” and he received no other treatment at that time. (Id. at PageID.510-511.) Plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Furrukh Jabbar, noted that Plaintiff had “a superficial laceration involving skin and fat, no injury to muscles, tendons or neurovascular issues, will close at bedside.” (Id. at PageID.525; ECF No. 22-12, PageID.320, 322.)

Plaintiff stayed at the hospital for two nights (October 4th and 5th) for “[o]bservation.” (ECF No. 25-3, PageID.511.) During his deposition, Plaintiff did not remember the reason he was under observation. (See id.) He testified that his discharge papers instructed him to “stay home for [his] injuries.” (Id. at PageID.487.) But he never saw anything in writing from Defendant saying that he would be able to heal from his injuries at home. (See id.)

After Plaintiff was released from the hospital, he was referred to Dr. Michael Scott. (See id. at PageID.511; ECF Nos. 25-11, 25-12, 25-13.) No one from Defendant's management or medical department prevented Plaintiff from attending his appointments with Dr. Scott. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.523.)

Plaintiff acknowledged during his deposition that a workers' compensation claim was opened on his behalf, but he could not recall whether he or “the company” completed the necessary paperwork. (Id. at PageID.512.)

C. Plaintiff's Visits to Defendant's Medical Department on October 7 and 8, 2019

Plaintiff did not work on October 5, 2019. (See id. at PageID.511.) He first “report[ed] to medical . . . at the plant” on October 7, 2019. (Id.)

According to Plaintiff, the doctor there-Dr. Vinaya Vallabhaneni- “made observations” about Plaintiff's injury, “tried to have [him] fill out [a] statement,” and “took [his] medicine.” (Id.; see id. at PageID.513; ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) Plaintiff testified that he asked for his medication because he was in pain and that Dr. Vallabhaneni tried to get a statement from Plaintiff when his medication was sitting on the table. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.485.) Plaintiff testified that “after going back and forth [Dr. Vallabhaneni] decided to give me my meds and told me they would get a statement from me at a later date.” (Id.) Plaintiff then took the medication in front of Dr. Vallabhaneni-without providing a statement-after Dr. Vallabhaneni “released” the medication to him. (Id. at PageID.486.) A Clinic Visit Progress Note dated October 7, 2019 reflects that Plaintiff “took the pill in [Dr. Vallabhaneni's] presence, against [his] advice, to hold for few minutes only.” (ECF No. 22-13, PageID.324; ECF No. 25-17, PageID.690.)

The October 7, 2019 progress note states that Dr. Vallabhaneni “advised [Plaintiff] to report to clinic every day for dressing change,” and it specifies a follow-up date of “10/8/19.” (ECF No. 22-13, PageID.325-326; ECF No. 25-17, PageID.691-692.) The progress note also states that Plaintiff is “[m]edically available to [perform] . . . work from 10/7/19, with the following restrictions---Sit down job only in clean environment---Training center^[7] for 4 hours/day. But he can get up and walk as tolerated.” (ECF No. 22-13, PageID.325-326; ECF No. 25-17, PageID.691-692.) Yet after Plaintiffs medical visit on October 7, 2019, Plaintiff “went back home”; he did not go to work at the training center. (ECF No. 25-3, PageID.511.)

Plaintiff again saw Dr. Vallabhaneni on October 8, 2019. (See ECF No. 22-14, PageID.328; ECF No. 25-18, PageID.695.) A progress note from this visit contains a follow-up date of “10/9/19, for dressing change.” (ECF No. 25-18, PageID.695.) It states that Plaintiff is “[m]edically available to restricted work--sit down job only, in clean environment, [sic] for 4 hours/day. Transportation is already provided.” (Id.) Similar information appears in a Duty Disposition Letter signed by Dr. Vallabhaneni that has a “Treatment Date” of “10/08/2019.” (ECF No. 22-14, PageID.328.) The letter indicates that the “Follow Up Appointment” is on “10/09/2019” and that Plaintiff's restrictions are:

“Work at the Training Center, Clean work area, Sit down job only. May ambulate as tolerated.” (Id.)

D. Plaintiff's Failure to Report to the Medical Department and the Training Center

Plaintiff did not report to the medical department on October 9, 2019. (See ECF No. 22-2, PageID.168.) He “also failed to report to work at the Training Center on October 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15. [Plaintiff] did not appear for his light-duty work at the Training Center until October 18, 2019.” (Id.) Plaintiff indicated during his deposition that he does not remember whether Dr. Vallabhaneni told him that he needed to report to the medical department each day for his wound to be redressed. (See ECF No. 25-3, PageID.511.) He testified that Dr. Vallabhaneni's orders “weren't really made clear to [him].” (Id. at PageID.519.)

E. Plaintiff's Unserved Suspension

On October 16, 2019, Plaintiff was disciplined with a “five days' suspension for insubordination” or failure to follow a medical directive. (Id. at PageID.507, 519; see ECF No. 22-2, PageID.168; ECF No. 22-7, PageID.280; ECF No. 25-47, PageID.791.) The Declaration of Jennifer Hickey, Defendant's “Sr Manager - Labor Relations” (ECF No. 22-2, PageID.166), indicates that Plaintiff received the suspension because

[o]n October 9, 2019, [Plaintiff], as he had on multiple occasions, contrary to the medical directive issued by the doctor at Great Lakes Works, failed to

...