Statement of Interest: Robinson v. Farley | PDF
Can a Driver Who Does Not Satisfy DOT Standards Win an ADA Claim?
Lexology
No – the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a driver who does not satisfy the requirements for commercial drivers established by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is a not a qualified individual with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., the plaintiff was a commercial truck driver who fainted at his home one day and was later diagnosed with syncope and an irregular heartbeat. No. 15-20610 (5th Cir. June 20, 2016). Following this diagnosis, the plaintiff’s DOT medical certification was rescinded. In response, the employer sent a letter to the plaintiff requesting more information and a return-to-work date. The plaintiff never provided this information. After the plaintiff’s medical leave expired, the employer terminated his employment, and the plaintiff sued for alleged violation of the ADA.
In analyzing the plaintiff’s claims, the Fifth Circuit noted that several other federal circuit courts – the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits – have each held that a commercial driver who does not satisfy DOT requirements is not a qualified individual with a disability. The court agreed with this reasoning and concluded that “[b]ecause he lacked the DOT certification required by federal law, J.B. Hunt could not let him return to driving, and the company’s administrative termination of Williams did not violate the ADA.”
Takeaway: Employees who are not qualified to perform the essential functions of their jobs, such as complying federal DOT regulations, with or without accommodation, are generally not able to bring successful ADA claims.
Two employees accuse Harris County business of discrimination
Southeast Texas Record
Two former employees are suing a Harris County company, alleging discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation.
Arnold Blake and Joel Deffebaugh, both of Harris County filed a lawsuit June 21 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas against Sulzer Chemtech USA Inc., alleging failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, in 2015, Blake, a black fire watch/hole watch, and Deffebaugh, a mechanic, suffered adverse employment actions by the defendant, which favored Hispanic employees. The suit says the plaintiffs were paid less than Hispanics who were doing the same work, were treated less favorably because of their different race, were routinely given entry level or redundant jobs despite their experience and/or below their qualifications and being given shorter and less lucrative assignments.
The plaintiffs allege Sulzer Chemtech discriminated against them on account of race and national origin, retaliated against them because of their complaints and ultimately, termination, based on alleged policy violations.
Blake and Deffebaugh seek a trial by jury, compensation for all damages, attorney fees, legal costs, expert fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the court deems just. They are represented by attorney Paul K. Stafford of Stafford Barrow PLLC in Dallas.
Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number 4:16-cv-01781
Judge rules in fired chief's complaints
Mount Desert Islander
A federal judge has ruled in the lawsuit against the town of Bar Harbor brought by former Police Chief Nate Young in April 2014.
In a June 27 decision, United States District Judge George Singal granted in part a motion for summary judgment filed in February by the town of Bar Harbor and dismissed other claims in Young’s lawsuit.
Young was fired in January 2014 after an investigation concluded that he was intoxicated and hostile toward two Bar Harbor police officers who, on a well-being check, found the chief slumped over the steering wheel of his pickup truck in the parking lot of a Town Hill business. The town manager’s decision to terminate Young later was upheld by the Town Council.
In his lawsuit, Young was claiming he was the victim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Maine Human Rights Act due to his alcoholism. He further claimed that he was fired for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to seek treatment.
Singal found otherwise, stating Young had not demonstrated that town officials considered him impaired because of his disability. Singal granted summary judgment on all three of those claims.
Young “has not presented this court with a genuine factual dispute as to whether [he] experienced a substantial limitation to any major life activity as a result of the impairment of being an alcoholic,” Singal wrote. “Therefore, on this record, there is no genuine disputed issue of material fact.”
Young also failed to provide “credible evidence” to support his assertion of retaliation, Singal found. Young “has not identified any facts tending to suggest that the town council’s decision to terminate Young’s employment was caused or influenced by his decision to take medical leave,” Singal wrote.
Singal dismissed Young’s claims for a Rule 80B review of the town’s decision to fire him, breach of contract and that councilors violated Maine’s Freedom of Access Act by holding executive sessions where he was discussed without being given the opportunity to attend. Singal determined these issues are a matter for the state court system because they “focus on the contractual and procedural aspects of [Young’s] employment and termination of [Young] by a municipal entity.
Whether or not Young intends to pursue the Rule 80B portion of the complaint in the state courts was unknown as of Monday.