Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 02-1063.,02-1063.
• Citation: 306 F.3d 1162
• Parties: George BAILEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

306 F.3d 1162

George BAILEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 02-1063.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard August 1, 2002.

Decided October 9, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Donald F. Brown, for appellant.

Charles Harvey, with whom Harvey & Frank, was on brief, for appellee.

Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, GIBSON,^* Senior Circuit Judge, and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant George Bailey seeks review of the district court's entry of judgment on his claim of disability discrimination. Bailey's employer defends the rationale supporting the district court's decision and advances several alternate grounds on which it might prevail. Although our reasoning differs from that of the district court, we affirm.¹

I.

George Bailey is an alcoholic who first began abusing alcohol in 1976. Since then, he has intermittently sought counseling and treatment. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful, and recovery has eluded him.

Defendant-appellee Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("Georgia-Pacific") is a manufacturer and distributor of tissue, pulp, and paper products. In 1987, Bailey began working as a paper handler at Georgia-Pacific's paper mill in Woodland, Maine. Although Bailey's alcohol addiction persisted throughout his tenure as a Georgia-Pacific employee, he was generally able to fulfill his employment responsibilities. A few exceptions are noteworthy. Over the course of his employment, Bailey was regularly called upon to work overtime shifts. On a small number of occasions, he had been drinking when he received such calls and declined to come in for the extra shifts. Also, in August 1998, Bailey was sent home from work upon arrival one day because his supervisor believed that Bailey had been drinking. This incident led Georgia-Pacific to place Bailey under a "last chance" agreement, the terms of which required him to attend counseling for alcohol abuse.²

Bailey's difficulties outside of work were far more serious. Starting in 1985 and continuing for the next several years (including the time of his employment at Georgia-Pacific), Bailey accumulated numerous convictions for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated ("OUI"). In February of 1999, Bailey was again arrested for OUI. Pursuant to an agreement with prosecutors, Bailey pleaded guilty to the OUI charge and was sentenced on March 23, 1999, to serve a four-month term of incarceration.

The day after his sentencing, Bailey's criminal-defense attorney contacted Georgia-Pacific to ask whether the company would be willing to supervise Bailey if he returned to work as part of a work-release program. Although Georgia-Pacific had previously supervised at least three other incarcerated employees on work-release, some convicted of felonies, they refused to do so for Bailey. Unable to take advantage of the work-release program, Bailey was forced to use his available vacation and sick leave while incarcerated. By the end of March 1999, however, his leave time had been depleted, and he was not due to be released until July. Georgia-Pacific notified Bailey of his termination in a letter dated April 1, 1999, explaining,

Your attorney tells us that you will be incarcerated for a period of at least four more months. Your attorney may have informed you that the company is not interested in participating in a work release program for the period of your imprisonment.

All Georgia-Pacific employees are expected to be available for work as scheduled. You have used all of your remaining vacation time since your incarceration began. Because you have not been and will not be available for work during your imprisonment, your employment is terminated for cause, effective today.

After exhausting the relevant administrative procedures, Bailey filed suit against Georgia-Pacific on February 21, 2001. His complaint contains three counts: Count I alleges that Georgia-Pacific violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213; Count II is a cognate claim under the Maine Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Me. Rev.Stat. tit. 5, §§ 4551-4634; and Count III is a common-law tort claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Following discovery, Georgia-Pacific moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court, assuming that Bailey was "a qualified individual with a disability" under both the ADA and MHRA, concluded that Bailey had failed to adduce evidence that he was terminated because of his disability. Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 176 F.Supp.2d 3, 9-10 (D.Me.2001). The district court reasoned that Bailey had shown that Georgia-Pacific terminated him because of his alcohol-related misconduct, but that the ADA specifically allows employers to subject alcoholics to the same work rules applicable to non-alcoholic employees. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12114(c)(4)). The district court further determined that Georgia-Pacific was not required to participate in the work-release program as a reasonable accommodation to Bailey's alcoholism. Id. at 11. Finally, the court exercised its discretion to decline jurisdiction over Bailey's remaining state-law claim. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). The district court entered judgment accordingly, and this timely appeal followed.

II.

A. Standard of review

Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine the record evidence "in the light most favorable to, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party." Feliciano de la Cruz v. El Conquistador Resort & Country Club, 218 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2000). We review the district court's ruling on summary judgment de novo. EEOC v. Unión Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos Y Alcantarillados de P.R., 279 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir.2002).

B. Disability discrimination³

Title I of the ADA generally prohibits discrimination in employment against qualified persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). In addition to forbidding disparate treatment of those with disabilities, the ADA makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to provide reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental limitations of otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities, unless the accommodations would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business. Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A); see also García-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638, 646 n. 9 (1st Cir.2000).

To establish a claim under the ADA, Bailey must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: 1) that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; 2) that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, either with or without a reasonable accommodation; and 3) that the employer took adverse action against him because of the disability. See Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d 231, 237 (1st Cir.2002); García-Ayala, 212 F.3d at 646; Criado v. IBM Corp., 145 F.3d 437, 441 (1st Cir.1998). For purposes of its opinion, the district court assumed, without deciding, that Bailey satisfied the first element of his claim — namely, that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. However, Georgia-Pacific argues that Bailey cannot meet his burden of production on this element. We find Georgia-Pacific's argument on this account persuasive and affirm the judgment of the district court accordingly. See Burns v. State Police Ass'n of Mass., 230 F.3d 8, 9 (1st Cir.2000) (noting that we "may affirm the entry of summary judgment on any sufficient ground revealed by the record").

The ADA defines "disability" as: (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Bailey argues that he is a qualified individual with a disability under each of the three definitions. We address seriatim Bailey's arguments on each definition.

1. Impairment substantially limiting a major life activity

We apply a three-part analysis when considering disability under § 12102(2)(A). First, we consider whether Bailey's condition constitutes a mental or physical "impairment." Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.2d 540 (1998); Carroll, 294 F.3d at 238. Second, we identify the life activities upon which Bailey relies to determine whether they constitute "major life activities." Id. at 238. Major life activities are only those that are "of central importance to daily life." Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 122 S.Ct. 681, 691, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002). Third, we must determine whether the impairment substantially limits the major life activity identified. Lebrón-Torres v. Whitehall Labs., 251 F.3d 236, 239-40 (1st Cir.2001). To be substantially limiting, the impairment's impact must be permanent or long-term. Toyota Motor, 122 S.Ct. at 691. Bailey bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.

There is no question that alcoholism is an impairment for purposes of the first prong of analysis under the ADA.⁴ See Evans v. Fed. Express Corp., 133 F.3d 137, 139 (1st Cir.1998); see also Reg'l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35, 46 (2d Cir. 2002), petition for cert. filed, 70 U.S.L.W. 3698 (May 03, 2002) (No. 01-1624); Miners v. Cargill Communications, Inc., 113 F.3d 820, 823 n. 5 (8th Cir.1997); Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 95 F.3d 1102, 1105 (Fed.Cir.1996). This conclusion is reinforced by the statute's legislative history. See H.R.Rep. No. 101-485(II), at 51 (1990), reprinted in 1990...