Godwin v. The George Wash., L.P.

1

JEANNA GODWIN Plaintiff, v. THE GEORGE WASHINGTON, LP, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 22-1066

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 23, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PATRICIA L. DODGE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jeanna Godwin (“Godwin”) alleges that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of a disability or perceived disability when an offer of employment was withdrawn by Defendant The George Washington, LP (“the GW”) in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117 (ADA).

Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37). For the reasons that follow the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.^[1]

I. Relevant Procedural Background

Godwin commenced this action in July 2022 and filed an Amended Complaint on October 3, 2022 (ECF No. 11). Count I of the Amended Complaint alleged disability discrimination in violation of the ADA and Count II asserted the same allegations under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951-63 (PHRA). Federal question jurisdiction was asserted over the ADA claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction was asserted over the state law claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

On October 17, 2022, Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) the Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal both with respect to the request for punitive damages in Count I and the PHRA claim in Count II, the latter on the ground that it was premature. Defendant filed an Answer to the other allegations in the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15).

During the initial case management conference that was held on November 15, 2022, the parties reached a compromise in which Godwin agreed to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), at which time the PHRA claim would be timely, and Defendant's pending motion to dismiss would be considered only if the SAC still included a request for punitive damages.

On December 2, 2022, Godwin filed the SAC, which still included a request for punitive damages. Although the SAC mentions the PHRA in its opening paragraphs, it does not include a PHRA claim. On December 30, 2022, the Court filed an opinion (ECF No. 30) and order (ECF No. 31) denying the partial motion to dismiss the request for punitive damages. In its opinion, the Court noted the fact that the SAC does not contain a claim under the PHRA (ECF No. 30 at 2 n.2). No amendment of the SAC was sought thereafter.

On April 24, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37), which has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 39, 41, 44).

II. Factual Background

The GW operates a hotel and event venue in Washington, Pennsylvania. During the period between August 2020 and August 2021, the GW consistently employed a total of less than 101 employees, including full-time employees, part-time employees, and seasonal workers. (Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts (“DCSMF”) ¶¶ 1-2) (ECF No. 38.)

Godwin has an opioid addiction. In 2008, she was prescribed methadone to treat her addiction and has been taking methadone daily since that time. (Id. ¶ 11.) She notes that she has never had a relapse since she began the methadone maintenance program. (Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant's Statement of Material Facts (“PODSMF”) ¶ 11) (ECF No. 42.)

Godwin has held almost two dozen bartending and serving positions in the last two decades, averaging “a couple months to a few years” in each position. She has been involuntarily terminated from several of these positions. (DCSMF ¶¶ 12-13.)^[2]

According to the GW, its hiring process begins when an applicant submits a resume either online through Indeed.com or in-person at the front desk. After an application is received, the hiring manager in the relevant department reaches out to the applicant to schedule an initial interview. Based on the result of the initial interview, the hiring manager chooses whether they want to proceed with the applicant. If so, the applicant is invited back to complete the necessary paperwork and a background check is completed. Once the paperwork and background check have been completed, the applicant returns for a final interview with the GW's general manager, Robert Plutto. The final stage of the hiring process is a drug test, which every employee is required to take and pass prior to beginning their employment. (Id. ¶¶ 15-20.)

The GW's banquet manager, Caitlin Hutchison, is the initial contact for prospective positions in the banquet department. Godwin applied to the GW for the position of banquet bartender through Indeed.com in or around summer 2021. The GW states that, at that time, there were several other applicants for the banquet bartender position, all of whom were interviewed by Hutchison and none of whom were ultimately hired for the position. Godwin participated in two interviews at the GW, the first of which occurred in or around July 2021, and the second of which occurred on or about August 3, 2021. According to Hutchison, Godwin used “foul language” during her first interview and arrived dressed in “jeans and a tank top,” which Hutchison deemed to be “unprofessional.” Nevertheless, Hutchison invited Godwin back for a second interview, during which Hutchison and Godwin reviewed the GW's drug testing policy, and Godwin disclosed that she was prescribed methadone. (DCSMF ¶¶ 21-26.)^[3]

Godwin denies that the interview process described by GW is what took place. (PODSMF ¶¶ 17-20.) In addition, she disputes GW's description of her interaction with Hutchison. Godwin denies using foul language or dressing inappropriately. Rather, she states that she met with Hutchison for twenty-five minutes during which she completed an application.^[4]Nothing further happened until Godwin told Deborah Kline, a friend who worked as a bartender at the GW who had suggested she apply for the position, that she had not heard anything about her application. Godwin then received texts from Hutchison stating that she “was on a hiring freeze but I would love to bring you in for paperwork and give you a starting date if would still like to work with us.”^[5]At that point, Godwin believed she had been hired by the GW and Hutchison told her that she had the job. Godwin had not met with Plutto at this point. (PODSMF ¶¶ 22, 24-25.)

Godwin described the discussion with Hutchison about drug testing as follows:

A. We went through the paperwork, the very last paper was the drug testing policy. When we got to that paperwork she said, okay. This is a drug testing policy. We stood up. She said, we do our own on-site drug testing is that okay? I stopped before I went out the door and I said, I have no problem with that. I've been described [sic] methadone for the past ten years. I have no problem getting paperwork from the doctor stating that I'm prescribed that. Is that going to be an issue? And she said, no, that should be no issue. I said okay. Sounds good, I'll see you Saturday.

She also told me that I would be training with Deb on Saturday night at 7:30. The only thing that she did not tell me was what to wear. ...

A. She then said, just go ahead and bring the paperwork with you, I will let Rob and the owners know that you're bringing this paperwork, and we should be all good. See you Saturday.

Q. Were you offered to complete the drug test while you were there?

A. No, I was told it was an on-site drug test, and that I would be getting drug tested on Saturday.

(PODSMF ¶ 26.)

The parties dispute a number of other facts. As it relates to the drug test, the GW states that Godwin declined to take a drug test because she was not comfortable doing so, and Hutchison told her that due to their policy, they could not move forward without a drug test. According to the GW, Hutchison relayed to Plutto following the second interview that Godwin was not comfortable taking a drug test, and Plutto responded that a drug test was required for all employees. (DCSMF ¶¶ 27-28.)^[6]

Godwin disputes the GW's version of these events. She represents that she agreed to take a drug test and present paperwork from her doctors regarding her methadone maintenance program. Several hours later, Hutchison called her and according to Godwin:

A. I had it on speakerphone, I was setting the table for dinner and I honestly thought she was telling me what to wear, because that's the only thing we did not cover. And instead she called and she said, Hey, Jeanna. I said, Hey, Caitlin, what's up? She said, I hate to make these -- I hate to make these types of phone calls. I said what do you mean? She said, unfortunately, we cannot hire you because you cannot pass a drug test with flying colors. And I said, well, what does that mean? I said, I have paperwork from my doctor that states I've been taking methadone for ten years. And she said, yeah, I'm sorry, unfortunately I went to Rob and the owners, and they both said that if you cannot pass a drug test with flying colors, that we cannot hire -- that we cannot have you work here. And I said, oh, okay. Thank you.

And she said, I'm really sorry. And I said, even if there is paperwork, and she said, yes, unfortunately they said, if you can't pass it with flying colors. And I said, okay. Well, thank you, and have a good day. And I had a shocked look on my face. My boyfriend and my daughter was there, and they heard that.

(PODSMF ¶ 27.) The GW acknowledges Godwin's description of what occurred (DCSMF ¶¶ 39-43), although it rephrases what Hutchison said as the GW “would be unable to hire her unless she took and passed a drug test.” (DCSMF ¶ 44.) Godwin responds that this fails to accurately characterize her testimony, which is quoted above. (PODSMF ¶ 44.)

According to the GW, general manager Robert Plutto is the ultimate decisionmaker...