Lawrence v. Star Prot. Agency

1

JAMES A. LAWRENCE, JR., Plaintiff, v. STAR PROTECTION AGENCY LLC, Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-00299-LK

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

March 6, 2023

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Lauren King, United States District Judge

Plaintiff James A. Lawrence, Jr., a former mobile patrol officer for Star Protection Agency, was terminated after he “medicated” with marijuana before a shift and then drove a company vehicle over a curb. He then sued Star Protection for discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, harassment, breach of contract, and “employment negligence.” Star Protection moves for summary judgment on all claims. Dkt. No. 26. The Court grants its motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Mr. Lawrence Interviews with Star Protection and Completes its Onboarding Process

In January 2019, Mr. Lawrence was employed with Toyota of Lake City and looking for a new job. Dkt. No. 37 at 6. That month Mr. Lawrence interviewed with Star Protection for a mobile patrol officer position. Id. at 7; see Dkt. No. 35 at 3. Star Protection is a private security agency based in Bellevue, Washington that provides clients various professional security services, including mobile vehicle patrol and security consulting. Dkt. No. 35 at 1; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2.

According to Mr. Lawrence's amended complaint, he disclosed to Star Protection's recruiter Justin Way during this interview that (1) he was seeking a new job because his current job “did [n]ot best suit [his] disabilities,” and (2) he “used [m]edication to alleviate [his] [i]njuries.” Dkt. No. 37 at 7; see also Dkt. No. 36 at 1-2, 10. Way avers that Mr. Lawrence never disclosed that “he was using medicinal cannabis for a disability,” and notes that if he had, Way would have told him “the company could not hire him due to its zero tolerance policy.” Dkt. No. 31 at 2-3. Way also states that he “discussed the physical requirements of the job” with Mr. Lawrence during the initial screening interview. Id. at 2.

Mr. Lawrence next interviewed with mobile patrol manager Jim Hatfield and supervisor Caleb Galati. Dkt. No. 37 at 7; Dkt. No. 35 at 3. They discussed “general schedule availability,” which Mr. Lawrence alleges consisted of four 10-hour shifts. Dkt. No. 37 at 7. Notably, Star Protection's Senior Director of Human Resources states that the company “requires all mobile officers to work overtime,” and that this policy “is discussed with each candidate during the initial interview, and is described in Overtime policy in the Employee Handbook and officer job descriptions.” Dkt. No. 35 at 2. Indeed, the job descriptions for the Motor Patrol Officer and Security Officer positions-which Mr. Lawrence electronically signed on January 28, 2019-list the ability to “stand, walk, and/or drive for up to 90% of an 8-12 hour shift” and the ability to “work up to 12 hours straight” as “physical requirements.” Id. at 59-60, 62, 64-66. Star Protection's Employee Handbook-which Mr. Lawrence signed on January 30, 2019-states that “[o]ccasionally some overtime may be required of nonexempt employees” and “[w]orking assigned overtime is an important part of each nonexempt employee's job responsibilities.”

Dkt. No. 35 at 17, 55. The Handbook also states that “All Security Officer related positions typically provide services to our clients on a 24 hour/7 day a week basis, so their schedules will vary based on agreed upon hours of assignment.” Id. at 15. On the same day he signed the Security Officer and Motor Patrol Officer job descriptions, Mr. Lawrence identified himself as “[n]ot [d]isabled” on a Voluntary EEO Self-Identification Form. Dkt. No. 37 at 7; Dkt. No. 35 at 88.

As part of his hiring and onboarding, Star Protection required Mr. Lawrence to pass multiple screenings, including a background check and drug test, to complete several trainings, and to review and acknowledge receipt of Star Protection's Employee Handbook and Accident Prevention and Safety Program. Dkt. No. 37 at 7-8; Dkt. No. 35 at 2-3, 55, 57, 68-79. The Employee Handbook includes a strict zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy prohibiting the use of alcohol or drugs “while on the job or in any other manner that may affect the employee's work performance,” and permits testing at the company's discretion. Dkt. No. 35 at 28-29. Similarly, the Accident Prevention and Safety Program-which Mr. Lawrence signed on March 13, 2019- states that “[w]orking under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs or using them at work is strictly prohibited and grounds for immediate termination.” Id. at 74, 79.

B. Mr. Lawrence Asks to Not Work Overtime

On April 28, 2019, Mr. Lawrence texted Galati shortly before he was scheduled to work an overtime shift, apologizing for the “late notice” and stating, “I was planning on coming in but my neck is saying stay home and lay down so In other words I won't be able to come in today.” Dkt. No. 35 at 83. He explained that “it wouldn't be a good idea to work today and put extra strain on my neck as I still feel after effects from a Car Accident where I was Rear Ended a Year ago.” Id. at 81, 83; Dkt. No. 37 at 8; Dkt. No. 29 at 1. Mr. Lawrence also called Hatfield to discuss his neck pain related to the 2018 accident and to express his desire to be excused from working overtime. Dkt. No. 37 at 8-9; Dkt. No. 35 at 84.

Mr. Lawrence's last-minute text did not comport with Star Protection's policy of giving at least four hours' notice, and on May 1, 2019, Galati and Hatfield met with Mr. Lawrence to give him a Disciplinary Action Form (“DAF”). Dkt. No. 37 at 9; Dkt. No. 35 at 22, 34-35, 81, 85-86. Mr. Lawrence refused to sign the DAF. Dkt. No. 37 at 9; Dkt. No. 35 at 82, 85-86. During the meeting, the three also discussed Mr. Lawrence's ability (or lack thereof) to work mandatory overtime. Dkt. No. 37 at 85-86; Dkt. No. 36 at 10.

Around this time, Galati offered Mr. Lawrence a static officer position, which would not require Mr. Lawrence to work overtime. Dkt. No. 37 at 9; Dkt. No. 29 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 35 at 1-2 (mobile patrol officers “provide random checks for businesses and physical security checks, parking control, removal of unauthorized persons, and emergency responses, while static officers provide on-site security without the use of a vehicle.”). Mr. Lawrence declined this offer because it would pay less. Dkt. No. 37 at 9; Dkt. No. 29 at 2. Mr. Lawrence also alleges he was not interested because he would be “standing all day in a static position.” Dkt. No. 37 at 9; see Dkt. No. 36 at 10. Star Protection asked Mr. Lawrence to provide medical documentation to support his request for an accommodation, but he did not do so. Dkt. No. 29 at 2. Mr. Lawrence claims Hatfield told him he did not care about Mr. Lawrence's health and that he “d[id] not want medical information[.]” Dkt. No. 37 at 9; Dkt. No. 36 at 10.

C. Mr. Lawrence Accumulates More DAFs, Culminating in Termination After He Runs a Star Protection Vehicle Over a Curb

On May 16, 2019, Mr. Lawrence failed to show up or call out for his scheduled shift. Dkt. No. 35 at 90-91. Although his supervisor called and left messages to try to figure out where Mr. Lawrence was, Mr. Lawrence did not return any calls until the next day. Id. at 90. He claimed he could not make a phone call until then due to an anxiety attack. Id. The resulting DAF stated that it was Mr. Lawrence's “final notice,” and that if he failed to follow the call-out procedure again, he would be suspended pending investigation and possibly terminated. Id.

On July 23, 2019, Hatfield and another Star Protection officer found what they suspected to be a “partially smoked marijuana cigarette laying in the console” of a company vehicle. Id. at 93; see also id. at 94-96. The following week, Hatfield directed Galati to investigate who had last used the vehicle. Id. at 93. The route sheet revealed that Mr. Lawrence had used it last. Id. at 93, 96. Hatfield and Galati planned to meet with Mr. Lawrence regarding the issue. Id. at 93.

Then, in the early morning of July 31, 2019, Mr. Lawrence received a call from another officer while driving on patrol, and “in the process of answering the call” without using a Bluetooth connection, “accidentally” drove over a curb, grounding his vehicle and causing hundreds of dollars' worth of damage. Id. at 102; see also id. at 101, 103-08, 110; Dkt. No. 37 at 8, 10-11. Mr. Lawrence notified his lead officer and a tow company was called to retrieve the car. Dkt. No. 35 at 101-03. The lead officer who arrived on the scene shortly after the accident emailed the following message to Hatfield and Galati afterwards:

Jim, [I] had Lawrence fill out the incident report information and [I] got pictures of the car as it was when [I] arrived on site. I called skyway towing to get it towed out to Brody's [Mufflers Brakes and Radiators], the earliest they said they could make it out there was 8am.... I can't say for sure if Lawrence was under the influence of anything or not, because he always acts kind of weird, but he was acting a little stranger at the time th[a]n normal, like he had a really slow reaction time when [I] was talking to him and telling him to put his stuff in my patrol car. Possibly worth looking into though, as he could be on pain medicine because he's always talking [about] his back hurting and having shoulder spasms from his prior car accident.

Id. at 109. A few hours later, Mr. Lawrence submitted to a drug screening which came back positive for marijuana. Dkt. No. 35 at 117-18; see Dkt. No. 37 at 11; Dkt. No. 36 at 5. Mr. Lawrence later admitted that he had “medicated” with marijuana prior to his shift. Dkt. No. 27 at 12.

On August 8, 2019, Mr. Lawrence again failed to show up for his scheduled shift. He did not...