Hentze v. CSX Transp., Inc.

477 F.Supp.3d 644

Merle F. HENTZE, Plaintiff,

v.CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 1:17-cv-217

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Signed August 7, 2020

Gregory A. Napolitano, Paul Montague Laufman, Laufman & Napolitano LLC, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

M. Scott McIntyre, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

DOUGLAS R. COLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Merle Hentze ("Hentze") claims that Defendant CSX Transportation ("CSXT") violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended ("ADA/ADAAA"), and corresponding Ohio law, see Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02, when it terminated him after he failed a written examination required for promotion from his current position of trainman to his new position of locomotive engineer. More specifically, he claims that the ADA/ADAAA (and corresponding state law) required CSXT to provide him reasonable accommodations on that examination, and that CSXT failed to do so. The matter is currently before the Court on CSXT's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21). For the reasons more fully discussed below, the Court GRANTS CSXT's Motion (Doc. 21), finding that Mr. Hentze is not a person with a "disability" as that term is defined in the ADA/ADAAA.

BACKGROUND¹

A. After Hentze Worked As A Train Conductor For Several Years, CSXT Promoted Him To An Engineer Pursuant To The Collective Bargaining Agreement.

CSXT hired Merle Hentze in September 2006 as a train conductor or "trainman." (See Hentze Dep., Doc. 21-1, #127). Hentze worked on CSXT's "LOTD" railroad line that extends from Lima, Ohio, northward toward Toledo. (See Harper Dep., Doc. 25-1, #478). In 2015, CSXT contacted Hentze about what the parties characterize as a "mandatory promotion" to engineer, which Hentze accepted on March 1, 2015. (See Hentze Dep. at #119; see also Freight Conductor Job Description, Doc. 21-1, #225; Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), Doc. 21-3, #301).

The parties refer to it as a mandatory promotion because Hentze did not have much choice but to accept it. As a CSXT employee and member of the United Transportation Union ("UTU"), Hentze was bound by the 1985 UTU National Mediation Agreement ("CBA"), the 1972 UTU National Training Agreement ("Training Agreement"), and the Consolidated Southern Region Agreement ("CSRA") (collectively referred to as the "CBAs"). (Floyd Decl., Doc. 21-3, ¶ 2, #294; see also CSXT's Memo. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Mot. for Summ. J."), Doc. 21, #87). Under the CSRA, if CSXT does not receive enough applicants for an open engineer position, CSXT is required to meet its need by mandatory promotion of trainmen into engineer service in what it refers to as inverse-seniority order (i.e., starting with the most senior trainmen). (CSRA, Doc. 21-3, #296). If an employee selected for promotion in this manner does not accept that promotion, he or she forfeits any seniority as a trainman, meaning that he or she will be terminated from their trainman position. (Id. ). Section 9 of the CBA reiterates those same requirements. (See CBA Rule 97(c)(3) at #231). Thus, Hentze was required either to accept the promotion to engineer or forfeit his seniority (and thereby lose his job). Unsurprisingly, Hentze chose the former.

In order to complete the promotion to engineer, however, CSXT requires candidates to pass a series of safety tests. CSXT claims this testing requirement, and the training that the soon-to-be-promoted trainmen receive in connection with it, serves an important purpose. As a train engineer, the employee will be responsible for operating a large, heavy piece of equipment that is in motion, sometimes through densely populated areas. Engineers thus must be able to work under pressure and understand the applicable safety rules. (See Mot. for Summ. J. at #89). As part of the promotion process and to assess their knowledge, CSXT requires its engineers to pass a written test about the safety rules. (See Locomotive Engineer Job Description at #292).

It is not only CSXT that believes such testing is important—so does the federal government. Federal transportation regulations applicable to locomotive operations, see 49 C.F.R. § 240.101(c)(6), provide that each railroad must have a certification program for its engineers that includes "a procedure for knowledge testing" that complies with the criteria established in 49 C.F.R. § 240.125. Subpart b of that regulation requires that a railroad maintain procedures for testing that a person has "sufficient knowledge of the railroad's rules and practices for the safe operation of trains." Id. at § 240.125(b). The regulations explicitly require that a railroad's testing methods must be "[a]dministered in written form[.]" Id. at § 240.125(c)(3).

B. Hentze Accepted The Mandatory Promotion And Began Training For The Safety Exams, But Performed Poorly On Quizzes During That Training.

In an effort to assist its incoming engineers in preparing for the written testing, CSXT maintains a Railroad Education Development Institute ("REDI Center") in Atlanta, Georgia. Hentze attended REDI Center training in the spring of 2015. (Hentze Dep. at #119). Almost immediately Hentze began struggling, failing three quizzes in his first few days of training. (Id. ).

Dylan Haggard, Hentze's instructor, talked with Hentze about the failed quizzes. He wanted to know whether Hentze understood the material, and why he might be struggling. (Haggard Dep., Doc. 25-1, #456). Hentze told Haggard that he had always had difficulty with tests, (see Hentze Dep. at #120), but apparently did not claim to Haggard that he had a learning disability. Based on their conversation, Haggard told Hentze that if Hentze felt like he was struggling perhaps he should go talk to a doctor. (Haggard Dep. at #457).

Despite not claiming to Haggard that he had a learning disability, Hentze testified that he had requested an accommodation during this conversation—namely, "[h]aving help from a trainmaster or road foreman" during the test. (Hentze Dep. at #122). Haggard says he reported his conversation with Hentze to Mark Nuchurch, the program manager for Locomotive Engineer Training. (Haggard Dep. at #457).

As Hentze continued to fail additional quizzes, he talked with other instructors about his issues. First, two days after speaking with Haggard, on April 22, Hentze spoke with Willie Wilson, Haggard's supervisor. (Hentze Dep. at #120; see also Haggard Dep. at #460). Wilson supposedly suggested that Hentze try studying both in groups and alone, but Hentze told him that "[i]t didn't matter either way" because "[n]either one helped." (Hentze Dep. at #120). Hentze claims he told Wilson, like he had told Haggard, that he struggled with taking tests. (Id. ).

After failing nine quizzes, on April 29, 2015, Nuchurch approached Hentze to follow up on Hentze's lack of progress. (See id. ). Nuchurch explained that he typically had this type of conversation with employees once they failed a certain number of quizzes. (Nuchurch Dep., Doc. 21-4, #318–19; see also Haggard Dep. at #457). Nuchurch testified that, during this conversation, Hentze mentioned that he thought he had a learning disability. (Nuchurch Dep. at #319). But Nuchurch further stated that he did not recall Hentze asking if he could have the assistance of a trainmaster or road foreman as an accommodation. (Id. at #328).

Nuchurch formalized what transpired during his meeting with Hentze in a contemporaneous email he sent to Fred Crane, CSXT's vocational rehabilitation manager. (Id. at #322; see also Doc. 21-4, Ex. B, #345). In the email, Nuchurch stated that Hentze "today claimed he believes he has a learning disability." (Doc. 21-4, Ex. B, #345). Nuchurch further wrote that "[Hentze] admits to not having any documentation, but he wants to get checked out." (Id. ). Nuchurch told Crane that "[s]ince he did mention learning disability [sic], I told him I would refer him to you." (Id. ). "Without documentation at this point, I don't know how much we can do, but I figured at least you may be able to direct him on how to seek the help he desires[,]" Nuchurch said. (Id. ).

When asked what, if anything, Nuchurch himself did to assist Hentze, Nuchurch testified that he could not remember, but also testified that there were certain types of assistance Nuchurch would offer anyone who started to struggle. "[W]e would tell them when they're testing that they can ask us to clarify a question for them. If they had trouble understanding a question, we could reread the questions to them. We could ... ask them the question in a different way ... if they had any difficulty." (Nuchurch Dep. at #320). "And that went for everybody," Nuchurch said. (Id. ). Nuchurch also recommended that Hentze join a study group. (Id. ). But he made the same suggestion for anyone who was not performing adequately on the testing. (Id. ).

Crane contacted Hentze on April 30, the day after receiving Nuchurch's email. (See Crane Dep., Doc. 25-3, #524; see also Doc. 25-3, Ex. D, #564). Crane understood from Nuchurch that "Hentze mentioned that he may have a learning disability[,]" and "that kind of brought up a red flag[.]" (Crane Dep. at #527). While Crane did not have many specific memories of his interactions with Hentze, he testified that he wrote his notes soon after any phone conversations he had, so his notes were a fresh portrayal of what happened at that time. (See id. ). Based on what he wrote in his notes, Crane advised Hentze that he "should seek evaluation of his condition to see if any treatment would be helpful." (Doc. 25-3, Ex. D, #564). Hentze allegedly agreed. (Id. ). Crane asked Hentze for documentation of any of his medical evaluations. (Id. ). That is because, under Crane's understanding of CSXT's policy, when an employee says they need an accommodation for a disability, the company requires medical documentation to support that request. (Crane Dep. at #531).

C. On His First Attempt, Hentze Failed The...