Atkins v. Holder

• Decision Date: 10 August 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 4:10-cv-1296-JMC-TER
• Citation: Atkins v. Holder, Civil Action No.: 4:10-cv-1296-JMC-TER (D. S.C. Aug 10, 2012)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: JEFFERY ATKINS, Plaintiff, v. ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.

JEFFERY ATKINS, Plaintiff,

v.ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 4:10-cv-1296-JMC-TER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Dated: August 10, 2012

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I.INTRODUCTION

This action arises out of Plaintiff's employment with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.Plaintiff alleges causes of action for racial discrimination, hostile working environment¹ and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),29 U.S.C. § 621 etseq., and disability discrimination and failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),42 U.S.C. § 12101, etseq.Plaintiff also asserts a state law cause of action for breach of contract.Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment(Document # 65).²All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B)andLocalRule 73.02(B)(2)(g), DSC.Because the Motion for Summary Judgment is a dispositive motion, this Report and Recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.

II.FACTS

A.Persons Involved in this Action

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff, an African-American male over the age of 40, was employed with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the Federal Corrections Institution in Williamsburg, South Carolina (FCI Williamsburg).Plaintiff began his employment with FCI Williamsburg as a Corrections Officer and later became a Correctional Counselor in Unit 3 of FCI Williamsburg.Plaintiff Dep.p. 9.

John Owen(Warden Owen) was the Warden at FCI Williamsburg beginning in 2007 and was responsible for the final decision to terminate Plaintiff.Owen Dep.pp. 6, 12.

Nicole Cunningham was the Human Resource Manager at FCI Williamsburg beginning in 2005 and at all times relevant to this action.Cunningham Dep.p. 8.

Gary Miller was the Unit Manager over Unit 3 at FCI Williamsburg and Plaintiff's direct supervisor.Miller Dep.p. 9.

Steve Langford has been the Associate Warden of Operations over Human Resources and Cunningham's supervisor at FCI Williamsburg since 2006.Langford Dep.p. 6.

Bobby Meeks was the Associate Warden of Programs at FCI Williamsburg from June 2007 to May 2010 and oversaw the Unit Managers at the prison including Plaintiff's supervisor Miller.Meeks Dep.pp. 6-8.

Michael J. Shoemaker , at all times relevant to this case, was an electronic technician at FCI Williamsburg and served in various positions for the American Federal Government Employees union's (AFGE) local office, and was involved in internal efforts to resolve the issues between Plaintiff and management at FCI Williamsburg.Shoemaker Dep.pp. 14-20.

William Turner has been a plumber at FCI Williamsburg since 2003, was the AFGE President and Secretary for the union's local chapter at various times relevant to the complaint, and was involved in internal efforts to resolve the issues between Plaintiff and management at FCI Williamsburg.Turner Dep.pp. 9-13.

Michael Bink , a Safety Manager and the former disabled veterans program manager at FCI Williamsburg, and Dr. Suzanne M. House, the Chief Psychologist at FCI Williamsburg were also involved in the events giving rise to this action.Plaintiff Dep.pp. 28-32.

B.Plaintiff's Position at FCI Williamsburg

Plaintiff was a Correctional Counselor in Unit 3 of FCI Williamsburg.Plaintiff Dep.p. 9.Miller, Plaintiff's direct supervisor, testified that, as a correctional counselor, Plaintiff would "be in charge of sanitation within the housing unit, doing visiting.He would also do phone lists.He would do counseling groups, if needed.He would talk with the inmates.Just general, everyday dealings with the inmates."Miller Dep.pp. 9-10.Miller testified that he did not recall ever having to discipline Plaintiff or otherwise having performance issues with him.Miller Dep.p. 10.Miller stated that Plaintiff"was a good employee.He performed well."Miller Dep.p. 14.

Plaintiff testified that he was "basically a liaison between the inmates and management for everything, clothing, telephone calls, emergencies, complaints."Plaintiff Dep.p. 44.Plaintiff also testified that he had security duties and would have to use physical force to lock inmates up if they got out of hand.Plaintiff Dep.p. 45.He also had to escort inmates in and out of the DHO hearing room.Plaintiff Dep.pp. 46-47.

The Position Description for a Correctional Counselor indicates that "[t]he Correctional Counselor develops and implements programs within the unit to meet the individual needs of theinmates confined, to include individual as well as group counseling. . . .The Correctional Counselor plays a key role in maintaining and enhancing the security of the unit and institution by his/her extensive contacts with the inmates."Position Description (attached as Ex. 4 to Defendant's Motion)p. 1.The Position Description further provides, inter alia,

Along with all other correction institution employees, incumbent is charged with responsibility for maintaining security of the institution.The staff correctional responsibilities precede all others required by this position and are performed on a regular and recurring basis.

Specific correctional responsibilities include custody and supervision of inmates, responding to emergencies and institution disturbances, participating in fog and escape patrols, and assuming correctional officer posts when necessary.The incumbent is required to shakedown inmates, conduct visual searches of inmate work and living areas for contraband, and is responsible for immediately responding to any institution emergencies.The incumbent must be prepared and trained to use physical control in situations where necessary, such as in fights among inmates, assaults on staff, and riots or escape attempts.

* * *

Factor 8-Physical Demands

The work is mostly sedentary although there is some walking and moving throughout the unit and institution to visit inmate work sites, respond to emergencies, and converse with treatment staff concerning inmates assigned to the incumbent's work load.

Factor 9-Work Environment

All staff in the correction facility, regardless of their occupations, are expected to perform law enforcement functions.As a result, the incumbent is regularly subject to physical hazards and dangerous conditions such as assaults and hostage situations.Due to the potential for uncontrollable situations to occur in a correctional institution, the level of risk for hazardous and stressful working conditions is very high.The duties of this position require frequent direct contact with individuals in detention suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States.Daily stress and exposure to potentially dangerous situations such a physical attack are an inherent part of this position; consequently, it has been designated as a law enforcement position.

Position Descriptionpp. 2-3, 6(attached as Ex. 4 to Defendant's Motion).

The Bureau's policies require that employees in law enforcement positions must be able to perform numerous physical activities, including walking up to one hour, standing for up to one hour, ability to perform self-defense movements, running an extended distance, dragging a body an extended distance, carrying a stretcher with one other person, climbing stairs, and lifting objects weighing 25lbs.Physical Requirements for Institution Positions (attached as Ex. 68 to Defendant's Motion).

C.Plaintiff's Medical Diagnoses and Work Restrictions

Plaintiff testified that he has been diagnosed as having degenerative joint disease of the right knee, chrondomalacia, an aggravated herniated disc, sciatica of the left hip, hypothyroidism, and sleep apnea.Plaintiff Dep.p. 10.In May and June of 2006, Dr. Justin Baker with McLeod Family Medicine indicated Plaintiff had sleep apnea which causes severe drowsiness.Dr. Baker indicated Plaintiff had a very difficult time performing his job duties because of this and that it would be best if Plaintiff have a medical leave of absence for these two months.Letters Dated May 8, 2006 and June 16, 2006(attached as Exs. 8 and 9 to Defendant's Motion).

On July 24, 2006, Dr. Baker indicated Plaintiff had developed Plantar fascitis and would have difficulty performing his duties and will need rest to help with his recovery.He indicated Plaintiff would need a month for his recovery.Letter Dated July 24, 2006(attached as Ex. 10 to Defendant's Motion).On August 28, 2006, a nurse with McLeod Family Medicine indicated Plaintiff would need another month off before returning to work.Form Dated August 28, 2006(attached as Ex. 11 to Defendant's Motion).³

On June 13, 2007, Dr. Baker indicated due to Plaintiff's polyarthropathy, he has difficulty standing for long periods of time.He further indicated Plaintiff could only stand 15 consecutive minutes at a time.Lastly, Dr. Baker indicated Plaintiff's training regiment should be adjusted to coincide with this need.Letter Dated June 13, 2007(attached as Ex. 12 to Defendant's Motion).Dr. Baker further indicated Plaintiff had sleep apnea and requested that his records be reevaluated to determine if whether it was related to his military service.Second Letter Dated June 13, 2007(attached as Ex. 13 to Defendant's Motion).Plaintiff testified Miller was aware of this restriction.Plaintiff Dep.p. 43.

On June 27, 2007, Dr. Baker reiterated the limitation that Plaintiff could only stand 15 consecutive minutes at a time, and noted that the difficulty should last at least 6 months.Dr. Baker indicated Plaintiff's workload should be adjusted to coincide with this need.Letter Dated June 27, 2007(attached as Ex. 14 to Defendant's Motion).

On January 10, 2008, Dr. Baker...