Case Law Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp.

Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp.

Document Cited Authorities (34) Cited in (15) Related

Charles E. Gilbert, III, Julie D. Farr, Gilbert & Greif, P.A., Bangor, ME, for Plaintiff.

Peter Bennett, Bennett Law Firm, P.A., Portland, ME, for Defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WOODCOCK, District Judge.

Afflicted with macular degeneration, Ashley Rooney challenges the decision of his employer, Sprague Energy Corp. (Sprague), to place him on an indefinite leave of absence, claiming that Sprague unlawfully discriminated against him because of his disability. Because there are genuine factual disputes about (1) the essential functions of his job, (2) whether he can safely perform those essential functions with or without accommodation, and (3) whether any accommodation will impose a hardship upon Sprague, the Court denies its motion for summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
A. The Parties

Sprague is an energy company with a terminal in Searsport, Maine. Def.'s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 3 (Docket # 15) (DSMF); Pl.'s Resp. to Def's Statement of Material Facts ¶ 3 (Docket # 24) (PRSMF). Sprague handles a variety of products at the terminal, including fuel oil, petroleum, asphalt, and caustic soda. Id. Before being placed on an indefinite medical leave of absence on October 27, 2004, DSMF ¶ 260; PRSMF ¶ 260, Ashley Rooney had worked for Sprague at the Searsport terminal since 1983. DSMF ¶ 8; PRSMF ¶ 8. When placed on leave, he held the title of Terminal Operator. DSMF ¶ 33; PRSMF ¶ 33. Duane Seekins was Mr. Rooney's boss and the terminal manager of the Searsport Terminal; William Littlefield was the assistant terminal manager; and John Didier was the managing director of terminal operations at Sprague. DSMF ¶¶ 40, 74, 92; PRSMF ¶ 40, 74, 92.

B. Mr. Rooney's Claims

On February 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed suit in state court, alleging employment discrimination based on the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 4551 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. Sprague removed the case to this Court on February 9, 2006. See Notice of Removal (Docket # 1).

C. The Terminal Operator Position

Sprague hired Mr. Rooney in 1983 as a watchman/yardman to load trucks with salt, coal, and caustic soda, check the boiler, moor vessels to the dock, and hook up hoses to the ship in order to off-load liquid cargo into tanks. DSMF ¶¶ 9-12; PRSMF ¶¶ 9-12. In October 2000, Sprague implemented a job description for the position of Terminal Operator, which Mr. Rooney held for four years before his leave of absence. DSMF ¶ 33; PRSMF ¶ 33. Aside from managerial positions, all current employees at the Searsport terminal are Terminal Operators. DSMF ¶ 35; PRSMF ¶ 35. The purpose behind the creation of the Terminal Operator job description was to have all employees cross-trained so that each could perform all duties of the job, DSMF ¶ 38; but it was not until 2002 that Sprague made the conscious decision to implement this plan. PRSMF ¶ 38; Didier Dep. at 17:4-12 (Docket # 27).2 Thus, it was Mr. Didier's expectation that every terminal operator be able to perform every function of the job. DSMF ¶ 78.3 The October 2000 job description contains the following itemization of "major duties/responsibilities:"

Operation of ticket booth

Night watchman responsibilities

Operation of large construction equipment (loader, bulldozer)

Assist with mooring vessels

Assist with offloading of cargo (connecting hoses)

Loading railroad cars

Operation of hoisting cranes

Operation of conveyor system

Supervise loading of caustic soda

Gauging of oil tanks

Assist with maintenance of grounds, buildings and/or equipment

Participate in oil spill response drills

Operation of boiler (with suitable license as required)

Electrical repairs (with suitable license as required)

Welding (with suitable training/certification as required)

DSMF Ex. 1 at 45.

Mr. Rooney recognized that he and his co-workers were required to learn all the jobs to work on tankers. DSMF ¶ 66; PRSMF ¶ 66. Mr. Rooney holds a valid boiler license. DSMF 13; PRSMF ¶ 13. For this aspect of his job, Mr. Rooney would check the boiler, read gauges, fill out paperwork, and ensure that "everything was working properly." Id. Before being diagnosed with macular degeneration, Mr. Rooney's boss — Mr. Seekins — informed Mr. Rooney that he needed to start performing more tasks, such as tank gauging and paperwork, and would have to learn to better use the computer. DSMF ¶¶ 61, 64; PRSMF ¶¶ 61, 64. During Plaintiffs annual review in both 2002 and 2003, Mr. Seekins instructed him that he needed to perform tank gauging functions while on tanker duty. DSMF ¶ 93; PRSMF ¶ 93.

Beginning in October 2000, Mr. Rooney performed a variety of the functions of Terminal Operator, including security round duties, boiler functions, operation of the bucket loader to load bulk product, minor maintenance on the loader, ticket booth duties, tanker duty, mooring functions, operation of the hopper, loading railroad cars, operation of the fuel truck between Bucksport and Searsport, and duties involving the transfer of caustic soda. DSMF ¶¶ 80-91; PRSMF ¶¶ 80-91. Although he used to perform work with caustic soda, Mr. Rooney no longer feels that he can safely do so, due to his eyesight problems. DSMF ¶ 204; PRSMF ¶ 204.

Plaintiff concedes that one of his major job duties as a Terminal Operator was to operate large construction equipment, including fork trucks and a front end loader. DSMF ¶ 141; PRSMF ¶ 141. He used the loader to move salt, coal and gypsum rock, and the forklift to move bailed pulp and paper and tapioca. DSMF ¶ 144-45, PRSMF ¶ 144-45. Mr. Rooney's duties also included mooring vessels and offloading cargo by connecting hoses, loading railroad cars, and operating the conveyor system. DSMF ¶¶ 152, 191, 198, 202; PRSMF ¶¶ 152, 191, 198, 202. Although he never actually gauged tanks during his employment, Mr. Rooney agreed that, in general, it is a major part of the job of Terminal Operator, and part of his yearly evaluations focused on the need to perform that function. DSMF ¶¶ 207-208; PRSMF ¶¶ 207-208.

D. Mr. Rooney's Deteriorating Eyesight

Mr. Rooney, now 59 years old, is afflicted with macular degeneration. DSMF ¶ 226; PRSMF ¶ 226. Although he first began having problems with his eyesight in January 2002, DSMF ¶ 227; PRSMF ¶ 227, he did not report the problem to Mr. Seekins until June 2004. DSMF ¶ 228; PRSMF ¶ 228. In March 2003, Dr. Linda Tyer conducted a Department of Transportation (DOT) evaluation,4 which revealed that Mr. Rooney's vision did not meet the DOT's minimum standards for vision in his right eye. DSMF ¶ 102.5 But with corrected vision, Mr. Rooney's eyesight met DOT standards. Id. Because Mr. Rooney had "borderline high blood pressure" and was taking blood pressure medication, he only received a one-year DOT physical card from Dr. Tyer. DSMF ¶¶ 103; PRSMF ¶ 103. On June 21, 2004, Mr. Rooney went to Dr. Tyer on a follow-up visit for an accident that occurred June 4, 2004; at that time, Mr. Rooney realized that his one-year DOT physical card had expired. DSMF ¶¶ 104-105; PRSMF ¶¶ 104-105. Dr. Tyer, therefore, performed the DOT evaluation at that time, but discovered that, even with corrected vision, she could not "get a vision" out of his right eye. DSMF ¶ 106; PRSMF ¶ 106. Dr. Tyer completed the remainder of the evaluation, except for the vision portion, and instructed Mr. Rooney to return to complete the DOT physical exam and obtain a card after correcting his vision; however, he failed to return and complete the evaluation. DSMF ¶¶ 108-109; PRSMF ¶¶ 108-109.

Mr. Rooney first told Mr. Seekins about his eye problems after the incomplete evaluation with Dr. Tyer in June 2004. DSMF ¶ 228; PRSMF ¶ 228. After he discovered the situation, Mr. Seekins became concerned about how Mr. Rooney's eyesight affected his safety and ability to do his job. DSMF ¶¶ 228-29; PRSMF ¶¶ 228-29. On August 20, 2004, Mr. Rooney saw Dr. Thomas Flynn, an ophthalmologist with a practice that focuses on two areas: ocular inflammatory disease and uveitis; and medical retina. DSMF ¶¶ 265, 280; PRSMF ¶¶ 265, 280. It was Dr. Flynn who diagnosed Mr. Rooney with macular degeneration, pigment epithelial detachment in both eyes, with cysts. DSMF ¶ 278; PRSMF ¶ 278. According to D r. Flynn, as of July 28, 2005, Mr. Rooney's condition had worsened, as Mr. Rooney's lenses had become more cataractous. DSMF ¶ 282; PRSMF ¶ 282.

On October 15, 2006, Mr. Rooney gave Mr. Seekins a letter from Dr. Flynn, confirming that Mr. Rooney had macular degeneration. In the letter, Dr. Flynn discussed the findings from his August 20, 2004 evaluation. DSMF ¶ 232; PRSMF ¶ 232. In the letter, Dr. Flynn wrote that as of August 20, 2004, Mr. Rooney had 20/40 vision in his left eye and 20/400 vision in his right eye; this level of disparity between the two eyes severely impairs depth perception. DSMF ¶¶ 235-36; PRSMF ¶¶ 235-36. Dr. Flynn also reported that Mr. Rooney's right eye vision was significantly distorted, such that straight lines did not appear straight to Mr. Rooney. DSMF ¶ 237; PRSMF ¶ 237. In his opinion, climbing a ladder would be "unsafe and difficult to do." DSMF ¶ 238; PRSMF ¶ 238.

Growing increasingly concerned about safety, Mr. Seekins forwarded Dr. Flynn's letter to the human resources department at Sprague's Portsmouth, New Hampshire corporate office. DSMF ¶¶ 239-240; PRSMF ¶¶ 239-240. Mr. Seekins also shared with human resources other incidents that he thought might have been related to Mr. Rooney's vision problems; namely, when Rooney fell on the boiler room stairs, struck a pole with his pickup truck, and struck another pole with the loader. DSMF ¶¶ 241-42; PRSMF ¶¶ 241-42. Sprague's human resources department shared Mr. Seekins's safety concerns and determined that it...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 2019
Mercado Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc.
"..."However, ‘the employer's good-faith view of what a job entails, though important, is not dispositive.’ " Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp. , 483 F.Supp.2d 43, 51 (D. Me. 2007) (quoting Guillén , 283 F.3d at 25 ). The EEOC regulations provide the following guidance:Evidence of whether a partic..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maine – 2010
Carmichael v. VERSO PAPER, LLC
"...that will allow Mr. Carmichael to perform the essential functions of his job." Id.; see also Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp. (Rooney II), 483 F.Supp.2d 43, 50-57 (D.Me.2007) (analyzing first whether the employer established the essential job functions and then whether there was a reasonable ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maine – 2014
Stark v. Hartt Transp. Sys., Inc.
"...2, an employee is competent to testify as to whether he or she encountered difficulties performing a job, see Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp., 483 F.Supp.2d 43, 56–57 (D.Me.2007) (denying employer's motion for summary judgment when, inter alia, employee generated issue of material fact as to..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts – 2019
Ballinger v. Town of Kingston
"...does not face such situations "does not necessarily mean that those tasks . . . are not essential"); cf. Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 43, 53-54 (D. Me. 2007) (denying summary judgment where two functions defendant characterized as "essential" were never or rarely performe..."
Document | Maine Superior Court – 2019
Smith v. City of Sanford
"...Because materialfacts remain in dispute with respect to this defense, summary judgment is not warranted. See Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 43, 60 (D. Me. 2007) (finding that conflicting opinions as to employee's ability to perform duties safely preclude summary judgment on..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 2019
Mercado Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc.
"..."However, ‘the employer's good-faith view of what a job entails, though important, is not dispositive.’ " Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp. , 483 F.Supp.2d 43, 51 (D. Me. 2007) (quoting Guillén , 283 F.3d at 25 ). The EEOC regulations provide the following guidance:Evidence of whether a partic..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maine – 2010
Carmichael v. VERSO PAPER, LLC
"...that will allow Mr. Carmichael to perform the essential functions of his job." Id.; see also Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp. (Rooney II), 483 F.Supp.2d 43, 50-57 (D.Me.2007) (analyzing first whether the employer established the essential job functions and then whether there was a reasonable ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maine – 2014
Stark v. Hartt Transp. Sys., Inc.
"...2, an employee is competent to testify as to whether he or she encountered difficulties performing a job, see Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp., 483 F.Supp.2d 43, 56–57 (D.Me.2007) (denying employer's motion for summary judgment when, inter alia, employee generated issue of material fact as to..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts – 2019
Ballinger v. Town of Kingston
"...does not face such situations "does not necessarily mean that those tasks . . . are not essential"); cf. Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 43, 53-54 (D. Me. 2007) (denying summary judgment where two functions defendant characterized as "essential" were never or rarely performe..."
Document | Maine Superior Court – 2019
Smith v. City of Sanford
"...Because materialfacts remain in dispute with respect to this defense, summary judgment is not warranted. See Rooney v. Sprague Energy Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 43, 60 (D. Me. 2007) (finding that conflicting opinions as to employee's ability to perform duties safely preclude summary judgment on..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex