Franklin v. City of Slidell
| Decision Date | 27 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 12–1940. |
| Citation | 936 F.Supp.2d 691 |
| Parties | Troy Reginald FRANKLIN v. CITY OF SLIDELL, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Troy Reginald Franklin, Slidell, LA, pro se.
Lawrence Emerson Abbott, Nancy Brechtel, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for City of Slidell, et al.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rec. Doc. 10), filed by Defendants, the City of Slidell and six of its employees (collectively “the City Defendants”). Plaintiff has filed an opposition (Rec. Doc. 12), to which the City Defendants have replied. (Rec. Doc. 25) Both the Plaintiff and the City Defendants have filed supplemental memoranda. (Rec. Docs. 32, 37) The City Defendants' motion was set for hearing on the briefs on September 12, 2012.1 Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the City Defendants' motion should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, for reasons explained more fully below.
On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff, Troy Franklin, filed the instant pro se employment discrimination lawsuit. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1) Plaintiff alleges that his employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 et seq., and the ADA regulations by: (1) disclosing his medical information, (2) requiring him to take a medical and psychological fitness for duty evaluation before returning to work from medical leave, and (3) not allowing him to return to work after he failed a fitness for duty evaluation, thereby forcing him to use his personal vacation and sick time. (Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12, p. 2) Plaintiff also alleges that the City Defendants intentionally violated his rights and retaliated against him for filing a discrimination complaint and civil lawsuit, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 1) Plaintiff also makes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination, and claims under Louisiana law. Plaintiff seeks the following nonexclusive items of damages: (1) back pay with benefits, front pay with benefits, or retirement if front pay is not a viable option, (2) general damages for loss of reputation, inconvenience, and the abuse he allegedly received, (3) punitive damages, (4) costs, and (5) all other equitable relief the Court deems proper. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3)
Plaintiff alleges that he is an African–American and that he was formerly employed by the City of Slidell as a senior corrections officer in the Slidell Police Department.2 (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 1; Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12, p. 1) Plaintiff further alleges that in September 2010, the Slidell Chief of Police, Randy Smith, relieved him of all duties with the Slidell Police Department after Dr. James Klein (“Dr. Klein”) evaluated Plaintiff and found that he was not fit for duty as a law enforcement officer. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2, ¶¶ 8–9) Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against the City of Slidell (“the City”), Dr. Klein,3 and six City employees, including: (1) Chief Randy Smith (“Chief Smith”), of the Slidell Police Department, (2) Captain Kevin Foltz (“Captain Foltz”), of the Slidell Police Department, (3) Captain Robert Jacobs (“Captain Jacobs”), of the Slidell Police Department, (4) Lieutenant Rockwell McLellan (“Lieutenant McLellan”), of the Slidell Police Department, (5) D. Rene Johnson (“Johnson”), the Slidell Civil Service Personnel Director, and (6) Tim Mathison (“Mathison”), the City's Chief Administrative Officer (collectively “Employee Defendants”). (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1)
In his Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations. On September 5, 2008, he received a death threat from Captain Jacobs. (Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12, p. 1) After receiving the death threat, he filed a complaint with the Slidell Police Department's Internal Affairs division and was referred to the employee assistance program. (Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12, p. 1) An unidentified individual at the employee assistance program informed Plaintiff that he might be suffering from “Post Traumatic Syndrome.” (Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12, p. 1) Thereafter, Plaintiff completed a “first report of injury” 4 and was referred to Dr. Harold Ginzburg (“Dr. Ginzburg”) for a psychiatric evaluation. (Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12, p. 1) Dr. Ginzburg found that Plaintiff was fit for duty but needed counseling. Dr. Ginzburg also recommended that Plaintiff and Captain Jacobs be separated. (Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12, p. 1) Captain Jacobs and Plaintiff were never separated. Thereafter, Plaintiff reports that he received numerous unexpected visits from Captain Jacobs and that he went out on sick leave “with the understanding of Chief Freddy Drennan.” (Pl.'s Opp. to Dr. Klein's Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 27, p. 1) Plaintiff kept Freddy Drennan (“Chief Drennan”), then the Slidell Chief of Police, informed of his progress in counseling, and in June 2010, negotiated with Chief Drennan to return to work from sick leave. (Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12, p. 1)
On June 25, 2010, Chief Drennan signed an authorization permitting Plaintiff to return to work on administrative duties. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2, ¶ 1) In the middle of June 2010, Lieutenant McLellan and Captain Foltz met with Chief Smith, then the Chief-elect set to succeed Chief Drennan, and disclosed medical information to Chief Smith to lead him to believe that Plaintiff was not fit for duty. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2, ¶ 2) On July 1, 2010, his first day of office, Chief Smith wrote a letter requiring Plaintiff to submit to a fitness for duty evaluation. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2, ¶ 5; Pl.'s Opp., Rec. Doc. 12, p. 2) Plaintiff contends that Chief Smith did not give a valid reason for the fitness for duty evaluation and, thus, violated the ADA, ADA Amendments Act, and the Code of Federal Regulations, in particular 29 C.F.R. 825.380.5 (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2, ¶ 5; Pl.'s Opp., Rec. Doc. 12, p. 2) Plaintiff also contends that Johnson, the Slidell Civil Service Personnel Director, sent him a letter dated July 7, 2010 requiring him to take a medical and psychological fitness for duty evaluation, thereby violating the ADA and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, the Code of Federal Regulations, in particular 29 C.F.R. 825.380, and state law. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2, ¶ 6; Pl.'s Opp., Rec. Doc. 12, p. 2)
Plaintiff further asserts that Johnson sent a letter to Dr. Klein providing medical information and other information that reflected negatively on Plaintiff's fitness for duty. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2) Plaintiff asserts that in August 2010, Dr. Klein found him to be unfit for duty and that in September 2010, Chief Smith relieved him of all duties and responsibilities with the Slidell Police Department. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶¶ 8–9) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants placed him on leave without pay for 32 days taking all benefits, (2) terminated Plaintiff without giving him recourse to fight the termination, (3) removed money from his checking account, and (4) had false stories placed in the local newspaper which prevented him from obtaining new employment. (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Opp., Rec. Doc. 37, p. 1) Plaintiff reports that after Chief Smith relieved him of his duties with the Slidell Police Department, Tim Mathison refused to speak to him and sent out an interoffice memo dated November 16, 2010 instructing all Department Directors and Chief Smith not to talk to him, thereby “eliminating the option for an Administrative Remedy.” (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ 10) Plaintiff asserts that Captain Jacobs admitted in discovery in a prior lawsuit that he was monitoring Plaintiff because he made an official complaint to the Slidell Police Department administration and federal authorities. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ 11)
On December 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that the City of Slidell and the Slidell Police Department discriminated against him on the basis of his race and disability and retaliated against him. (Charge of Discrimination, Ex. L to Pl.'s Opp. to City Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Rec. Doc. 12–1, p. 47) In the Charge of Discrimination, Plaintiff described the allegedly discriminatory events as follows:
I was released for return to work on July 15, 2010. Chief Randy Smith informed me I had to take a physical. Around August 13, 2010, I was told that I couldn't go back to work because I failed part of [sic] physical. I believe I'm being discriminated against because of my race, Black, disability and in retaliation for filing a previous charge of discrimination with EEOC. Although I was released for work by my doctor, Chief Smith informed me I couldn't return to work because I was psychotic, delusional, and paranoid. Base [sic] on information provided by Dr. Alan James Klein Ph.D. It also stated that I was not fit to work for any law enforcement agency.
(Ex. L to Pl.'s Opp., Charge of Discrimination, Rec. Doc. 12–1, p. 47)
The EEOC concluded that based upon its investigation, it was unable to conclude that the information obtained established violations of Title VII, the ADA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. On April 27, 2012, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ 12). On August 21, 2012, the City Defendants filed the instant 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. (Rec. Doc. 12) On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Rec. Doc. 12)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerald v. Univ. of S. Miss.
...in their individual capacities given the similarities between the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. See, e.g., Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F. Supp. 2d 691, 703 (E.D. La. 2013) ("[I]ndividuals are not subject to liability under Title I of the ADA."); Pena v. Bexar County, Tex., 726 F. Supp. 2......
-
Foster v. Jayden Hosp.
...her administrative remedies.” Patton v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., 874 F.3d 437, 443 (5th Cir. 2017); Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F.Supp.2d 691, 709 (E.D. La. 2013) (“A plaintiff asserting a claim against his employer under the ADA must exhaust his administrative remedies before f......
-
Taylor v. City of Shreveport
...(9th Cir.1999) ; Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221, 1228–29 (10th Cir.1997) ; Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F.Supp.2d 691, 714–15 (E.D.La.2013) (citations omitted).36 E.g., Lee, 636 F.3d at 255.37 Id. (citing 24 C.F.R. § 8.13(a) ).38 Id. at 254–55.39 See id.......
-
Butler v. Louisiana
...obtained the medical information that was disclosed through an entrance exam or disability-related inquiry. Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F. Supp.2d 691, 711 (E.D. La. 2013) (citations omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a tangible injury due to the disclosur......
-
The COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout: What Employers Need To Know
...47 See, e.g., EEOC v. Thrivent, 700 F.3d 1044 (7th Cir. 2012); Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. La. 2013); Heston v. Underwriters Lab., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 840 (M.D.N.C. 48 The term "loss" means any type of loss, including (i) death; (ii) physical, mental or emotiona......
-
The COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout: What Employers Need To Know
...47 See, e.g., EEOC v. Thrivent, 700 F.3d 1044 (7th Cir. 2012); Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. La. 2013); Heston v. Underwriters Lab., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 840 (M.D.N.C. 48 The term "loss" means any type of loss, including (i) death; (ii) physical, mental or emotiona......
-
Chapter § 3-2 § 1630.2. Definitions
..."respondent superior" liability, not personal liability. District courts in the Fifth Circuit agree. • Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. La. 2013) (court, while noting there is no definitive Fifth Circuit authority, holds that courts uniformly hold held there is no mana......
-
Chapter § 3-14 § 1630.14. Medical Examinations and Inquiries Specifically Permitted
...12112(d) prohibiting the disclosure of medical information. Courts deal with them in a variety of ways. • Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. La. 2013) (dismissal would be appropriate because plaintiff failed to include claim in EEOC charge; in any event, dismissal is app......