Coppett v. Tenn. Valley Auth.

987 F.Supp.2d 1264

Johnny COPPETT, Plaintiff,

v.TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. CV–11–S–4227–NE.

United States District Court,

N.D. Alabama,

Northeastern Division.

Dec. 16, 2013.

Adam P. Morel, Law Offices of Adam Morel LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Tricia Lynn Roelofs, Edwin W. Small, and Brent R. Marquand, General Counsel's Office, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

C. LYNWOOD SMITH, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiff, Johnny Coppett, filed this case on December 15, 2011, asserting claims for violations of Sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794, and a supplemental state law claim for outrage, against the following defendants: his employer, the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”); Tom Kilgore, the “head” of TVA; Dennis Bottorff, Chairman of the Board of Directors of TVA; and Marilyn A. Brown, Mike Duncan, Tom Gilliland, William Graves, Barbara S. Haskew, Richard Howarth, Neil McBride, and William B. Sansom, the members of the TVA Board of Directors. All individual defendants were sued in their respective official capacities only. ¹

Plaintiff later conceded the dismissal of his outrage claim, and he also conceded that his Rehabilitation Act claims against TVA and Tom Kilgore were due to be dismissed because the members of the TVA Board of Directors are the only proper defendants.² Additionally, the court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to any of plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claims arising out of a failure to promote in 2003 and a demotion in 2006.³ The remaining defendants— i.e., Bottorff, Brown, Duncan, Gilliland, Graves, Haskew, Howarth, McBride, and Sansom—have moved for summary judgment on the remaining aspects of plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim,⁴ and that motion currently is before the court. Upon consideration of the motion, briefs, and evidentiary submissions, the court concludes that the motion should be granted.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In other words, summary judgment is proper “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 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.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “In making this determination, the court must review all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir.2000)(en banc) (quoting Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir.1995)). Inferences in favor of the non-moving party are not unqualified, however. “[A]n inference is not reasonable if it is only a guess or a possibility, for such an inference is not based on the evidence, but is pure conjecture and speculation.” Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.1983) (alteration supplied). Moreover,

[t]he mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case. The relevant rules of substantive law dictate the materiality of a disputed fact. A genuine issue of material fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor.

Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023 (quoting Haves, 52 F.3d at 921) (emphasis and alteration supplied). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (asking “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law”).

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS

A. TVA Position Requirements

The Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) is a corporate agency and instrumentality of the United States. It operates the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant in Athens, Limestone County, Alabama (“Browns Ferry”). See16 U.S.C. §§ 831–831ee. TVA employs a variety of trades and labor personnel to complete necessary maintenance tasks at Browns Ferry.⁵ Before the year 2000, all of the trade and labor work at Browns Ferry was performed by members of various craft unions, and there were strict rules about what types of work could be performed by the members of each union.⁶ In 2000, TVA and the various craft unions agreed to eliminate the strict “jurisdictional” boundaries that segregated tasks among the craft unions, and to instead transition to “multiskill” classifications for craft employees. The purpose of the multiskill program was to develop employees who possessed multiple, cross-craft skills, thereby increasing plant efficiency and minimizing work interruptions. ⁷

Under the multiskill program, employees who previously had been classified as journeymen would be reclassified as Level 2 Nuclear Maintenance Technicians (“Tech 2's”), and would be paid 100% of their former craft wage.⁸ All Tech 2's were paid the same union-negotiated salary.⁹ After completing all of the training and service requirements under the multiskill program, craft employees were eligible for a promotion to either a Level 3 or Level 4 Nuclear Maintenance Technician position (“Tech 3” or “Tech 4”), and would be paid a premium of either five percent (for Tech 3) or ten percent (for Tech 4) above the regular rate for a Tech 2.¹⁰

The purpose of the Tech 2 position is to perform a wide variety of electrical maintenance tasks within the plant, including: repairing breakers, motors, switch gear, and related electronic equipment; repairing and replacing battery systems; maintaining generators; repairing or replacing lighting; and operating overhead cranes. The essential functions of the Tech 3 position include all of the requirements of the Tech 2 position, plus the ability to perform multiple cross-craft duties, such as mechanical work. Because a Tech 3 possesses a wide variety of skills, he or she often is able to independently complete a job that previously would have required a crew comprised of multiple employees from different crafts.¹¹ All essential functions of the Tech 2 and Tech 3 positions are performed inside the Browns Ferry plant. ¹²

In October of 2004, TVA adopted Employment Policy Number 18 to address multi-skill employees with medical constraints.¹³ That policy provides, in pertinent part, that “[f]or current employees to be qualified for a multi-skill position of Level 3 or 4 or to continue holding the position of a Level 3 or 4 Technician, they must be able to perform the essential functions of the position in all areas of the plant/facility.” ¹⁴ The policy also provides that

TVA should not pay a premium for employees who cannot perform the essential functions and meet the physical requirements of the multi-skilled classifications. TVA will continue to provide reasonable workplace adjustments as appropriate. If an employee has completed a level of multi-skill training and is receiving a multi-skill premium, TVA may rescind the premium pay if the employee has an indefinite medical constraint that prevents him/her from performing the essential functions of the job.¹⁵

The policy also states the following with regard to employees on indefinite medical constraints after they have completed at least one level of multi-skill training:

Employees (including foremen) who are placed on indefinite medical constraints after completing at least one level of multi-skill training must be medically evaluated by a TVA physician/medical vendor and be able to safely perform the essential functions of the job. A functional capacity test may be ordered by the TVA physician as part of the medical exam to help ensure an employee's ability to meet the physical requirements of the multi-skill position.... [I]f they are medically not approved or unable to safely perform the essential functions, ... they will be reclassified to the highest level they have achieved for which they can perform the essential functions.... [I]f they cannot perform the essential functions of a Level 3 Technician, they will be reclassified as a Level 2 Technician. TVA management may identify workplace adjustments as appropriate to assist employees in performing the essential functions of their position.

.... If the employees who are placed on indefinite medical constraints cannot perform the essential functions of a Level 2 Technician, they must identify employment alternatives within TVA or consider termination.¹⁶

B. Plaintiff's Medical Condition and Employment History with TVA

Plaintiff began working for TVA in October of 1983.¹⁷ He became an electrical craft technician in June of 1991.¹⁸

1. MS diagnosis

Plaintiff was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in August of 2003. ¹⁹ That condition causes him to experience occasional temporary loss of sight, numbness, tingling and burning sensations, nerve pain, and loss of balance. His ability to walk is limited, as is his ability to be exposed to high temperatures.²⁰ He takes medication that alleviates some of his symptoms, and he uses a scooter to mobilize.²¹

The physician who diagnosed plaintiff with MS stated, in a letter dated August 26, 2003:

[Plaintiff] will not be able to continue his job at Brownsferry [ sic ] Nuclear Plant as an electronics maintenance tech because of the possibility that he might have another seizure and the possibility also that he might not be physically able to carry it out due to the Multiple Sclerosis. I have asked him to seek a position at Brownsferry [ sic ] which is less demanding and he says that he has already done so.²²

Plaintiff...