Morris v. Metals

JOHN KRIS MORRIS, Plaintiff,

v.PRECOAT METALS, a division of SEQUA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-0053-SLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: September 27, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The case is currently before the court on defendant Precoat Metals' ("Precoat"), a division of Sequa Corporation, ("Sequa") Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 34).¹ In his Complaint, (doc. 1), plaintiff John Kris Morris ("Morris") asserts the following claims against Precoat: (1) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.,² (2) termination of employment on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA, (3) retaliation in violation of the ADA, and (4) negligence under Alabama state law. Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant law, the court is of the opinion thatPrecoat's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 34), is due to be granted with respect to all claims.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "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). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and show that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); see also Clark, 929 F.2d at 608 ("[I]t is never enough simply to statethat the non-moving party cannot meet its burden at trial."). Moreover, absent other corroborating evidence, a plaintiff's conclusory, unsupported allegations may be discounted. See Bennett v. Parker, 898 F.2d 1530, 1533-34 (11th Cir. 1990).

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to "weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Therefore, "courts are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences 'in the light most favorable to the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion.'" Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam)). Nevertheless, the non-moving party "need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference." Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 1274, 1282 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Brown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n.12 (11th Cir. 1988)); see also Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 ("When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment."). Therefore, "[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted).

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS³

Background

Several years before he started working for defendant Precoat, plaintiff Morris underwent brain surgery because of a condition he had known as Arnold-Chiari malformation, which caused him to have severe headaches. (Doc. 38-2 ¶ 12, Morris Aff.) After the operation, Morris's physician, Dr. Rampulla, prescribed Methadone to help control both fluid buildup on his brain and headaches. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Methadone is a medication that is often used to treat recovering drug addicts. (Doc. 50 at 8.) Later, on or about July 17, 2007, Precoat hired Morris as a coater operator at its Birmingham, Alabama, facility. (Doc. 34-3 ¶ 3, Louie Aff.) When he was hired, Morris was required to submit a hair and a urine sample pursuant to Precoat's drug testing policy. (Id.) At this point, he had been taking Methadone for several years, and he continued to take it while he was employed at Precoat. (Doc. 38-2 ¶¶ 14-15, Morris Aff.)⁴ During Morris's time at Precoat, he was considered reliable, a hard worker, and a qualified employee. (Doc. 38-8 at 37, 44, 63, Birnmann Depo.; doc. 38-16, June 21, 2008, E-mail.) He never had any problems, with the exception of someattendance issues. (Doc. 34-12 at 205-06, Louie Depo.; doc. 34-21 at 32-33, Christopher Depo.; doc. 34-2, Unsigned Employee Warning Form.)

Coater Operator Job Requirements

Precoat is in the business of applying decorative and protective coatings to steel and aluminum. (Doc. 34-3 ¶ 2, Louie Aff.) Morris's primary duties as a coater operator at Precoat included topcoat application and roll changes, (doc. 38-8 at 43-45, Birnmann Depo), which Morris characterizes as "mix[ing] paint and pour[ing] it into a machine." (Doc. 50 at 8.) However, while these may have been Morris's primary duties, there are several additional duties listed in Precoat's Coater Operator Job Description, including operating "complex equipment." (Doc. 34-8 at 1, Coater Operator Job Description.) The Job Description also states that the position includes some "[c]ritical [d]emands" such as "[h]and, eye and feet coordination to operate fork trucks," "[s]quat[ing], kneel[ing] or stoop[ing] frequently to perform job duties," "[f]requently lift[ing] and carry[ing] up to 50 pounds," "[w]alk[ing] or stand[ing] for extended periods of time," and "[s]tamina to work in extreme temperatures," among others. (Id. at 2.)

Next, the Job Description lists the tools and equipment which may be used on the job, some of which include "[f]ork trucks, propane and electric," "[s]hears and knives," and "personal protective equipment." (Id. at 2-3.) Morris testified that Precoat's job description was accurate, with the exception of the requirement that he regularly use a crane and aforklift. (Doc. 34-4 at 111-13, Morris Depo.) However, he did note that he still operated a forklift once or twice a week. (Id. at 113.) Morris agreed that his position could be dangerous and admitted that he believed Precoat was concerned about both his safety and the safety of other employees. (Id. at 171.)

In addition to all of these requirements, the Job Description notes that the work environment involves "[p]eriodic exposure to fumes from paints and chemicals used in coating processes." (Doc. 34-8 at 3, Coater Operator Job Description.) Morris claimed that the fumes in the area where he worked were substantial. (Doc. 34-4 at 31-32, Morris Depo.) Morris's supervisor, Lothar Birnmann ("Birnmann"), who worked for Precoat as a production foreman responsible for several employees, testified that one could smell the fumes, but that they were not strong and were controlled by air circulation fans and periodic testing. (Doc. 38-8 at 19-20, Birnmann Depo.) He also had never heard of the fume levels being too high, nor had he heard any complaints from employees about the fumes. (Id. at 20-21.)

June 12, 2008, Incident Requiring Morris's First Drug Test

On June 12, 2008, Morris came into work and was reported by other employees to be confused, while swaying and shouting. (Doc. 34-15, Recording Form Observed Behavior Determining Reasonable Cause; doc. 34-16, Rob Nemeth's June 13, 2008, Notes.) Morris later claimed that he had not been swaying or shouting, but agreed that he had been confused.(Doc. 34-4 at 109, Morris Depo.) Because of this incident, Birnmann called Rob Nemeth ("Nemeth"), the production manager, and told him that "several employees" witnessed Morris "walking unstable, slurred speech, eyes closing, sometimes falling a sleep [sic]." (Doc. 34-16, Rob Nemeth's June 13, 2008, Notes). Birnmann sent Morris home in accordance with Nemeth's instructions and directed him to return the next day in order to talk to Nemeth. (Id.; doc. 38-8 at 25, Birnmann Depo.)

The next morning, June 13, 2008, Birnmann filled out a report describing Morris's behavior as "confused," "swaying," and "shouting," (doc. 34-15, Recording Form Observed Behavior Determining Reasonable Cause), and attended a meeting along with Nemeth, Morris, and Chip Bartlett ("Bartlett"), the environmental health and safety coordinator. (Doc. 34-16, Rob Nemeth's June 13, 2008, Notes; doc. 34-11 at 32, Louie Depo.) Despite this initial report on Morris, Birnmann testified in his deposition that Morris's behavior had been "a little out of the ordinary," but that he had not seemed confused nor had he been shouting at anyone in particular, though he was "a little bit loud." (Doc. 38-8 at 23-24, Birnmann Depo.) However, Birnmann also testified that he sent Morris home out of concern for his safety because of his unusual behavior, (id. at 25), and further stated that anything he had ultimately reported to management he would have "consider[ed] serious," (id. at 29). Morris later testified that Birnmann told him another employee had come to Birnmann about three months prior to the June 12, 2008, incident, claiming Morris had...