BATES v. DURA Auto. Sys. INC.
| Decision Date | 03 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-6351.,09-6351. |
| Citation | 625 F.3d 283 |
| Parties | Velma Sue BATES; Claudia Birdyshaw; Willarene Fisher; Mark Long; Jon Toungett; Carolyn Wade; Richard White, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
625 F.3d 283
Velma Sue BATES; Claudia Birdyshaw; Willarene Fisher; Mark Long; Jon Toungett; Carolyn Wade; Richard White, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6351.
United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.
Argued: Oct. 19, 2010.
Decided and Filed: Nov. 3, 2010.
ARGUED: Robert E. Boston, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. John A. Beam, III, Equitus Law Alliance, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Robert E. Boston, Andrew S. Naylor, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, Ben Boston, Boston, Holt, Sockwell & Durham, PLLC, Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, for Appellant. John A. Beam, III, Kristin J. Fecteau, Equitus Law Alliance, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.
Before: MARTIN and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; LUDINGTON, District Judge. *
Plaintiffs-appellees are seven former employees of Dura Automotive Systems who are challenging Dura's drug testing
policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In resolving the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the district court held that an individual need not be disabled to pursue a claim under section 12112(b)(6) of the Act. The district court certified this issue for interlocutory appeal, which a panel of this Court granted. We now REVERSE the district court's decision and hold that an individual must be disabled to pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6).
As this interlocutory appeal presents a purely legal issue, we will only briefly summarize the relevant facts to provide context. The Employees are seven individuals who worked at Dura's Lawrenceburg, Tennessee manufacturing facility. Dura manufactures glass window units for cars, trucks, and busses, and the Employees performed a wide range of jobs at Dura including driving tow motors, assembling windows, painting primer on frames, and trimming and water testing windows.
Dura grew concerned that the Lawrenceburg facility had a higher rate of workplace accidents than comparable plants and suspected that this might be caused by either legal or illegal drug use. To improve safety, Dura implemented a policy that prohibited employees from using legal prescription drugs if such use adversely affected safety, company property or job performance. Dura worked with an independent drug testing company to set up a procedure to screen its employees for substances it believed could be dangerous in the workplace. The resulting policy screened employees for twelve substances including those commonly found in legal prescription drugs such as Xanax, Lortab, and Oxycodone.
Each of the Employees tested positive for one of the twelve prohibited substances. In each case, the individual had a legal prescription for a drug containing that substance. Dura gave each of the Employees an opportunity to transition to drugs without the prohibited substances, but refused to consider letters from doctors stating that the Employees' work performance would not be affected by the drugs. Eventually, Dura terminated the Employees when they continued taking medication with the prohibited substances.
The Employees sued, claiming that Dura's drug testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. In resolving the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that six of the Employees are not disabled as a matter of law. 1 The district court held that the Employees' claim that Dura's actions constituted an impermissible medical examination is best analyzed under section 12112(b)(6). The district court denied the Employees' summary judgment motion, finding that there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether Dura's justification for the drug testing falls within the exception in the Act for testing that is job related and consistent with business necessity.
Dura then moved for clarification, asking the district court to determine whether individuals must be disabled in order to pursue claims under section 12112(b)(6). The district court affirmed its initial decision that individuals do not need to be disabled to assert claims under
section 12112(b)(6), but, recognizing that there is a difference of opinion on this question, certified this issue for interlocutory appeal. A panel of this Court granted the petition for leave to appeal on the issue of whether an individual must be disabled to pursue a claim under section 12112(b)(6) of the Act.
Because this is an interlocutory appeal, we cannot review the district court's findings of fact and must consider only pure questions of law. Nw. Ohio Adm'rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir.2001). We review the district court's conclusions of law de novo. Id.
B. The Text of Section 12112
[1] Section 12112 of the Act prohibits discrimination against a “qualified individual with a disability because of the disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (2006). 2 In pertinent part, this section provides:
(a) General Rule
No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual ...
(b) Construction
As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term “discriminate” includes ...
...
(6) using...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skyworks, Ltd. v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention
...and commonsense meanings.’ " Black v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. , 983 F.3d 858, 863 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc. , 625 F.3d 283, 285 (6th Cir. 2010) ). In doing so, courts ascribe "terms the ordinary meaning that they carried when the statute was enacted." Id. (......
-
Gooch v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of America
...and unavoidably decides the non-appealable issue.” Id. at 503 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 625 F.3d 283, 286–87 (6th Cir.2010)). The motion to strike does not meet this standard. The testimony relates to certification, but other depositions pro......
-
Sanders v. Allison Engine Co.
...of liability.”II. On interlocutory appeal, our review is limited to “consider[ing] only pure questions of law.” Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 625 F.3d 283, 285 (6th Cir.2010). Statutory interpretation and challenges to the constitutionality of a statute present questions of law subject to......
-
Operating Eng'rs Local 324 Health Care Plan v. G & W Constr. Co.
...“pure questions of law” and apply a de novo standard as we examine the district court's legal conclusions. See Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 625 F.3d 283, 285 (6th Cir.2010) ; Nw. Ohio Adm'rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir.2001). We ultimately review for an abu......
-
Chapter § 3-11 § 1630.11. Administration of Tests
...of same at the time she took the test). Practitioners must keep in mind the issue of standing. • Betes v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., 625 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2010) (employees were tested for drugs and tested positive for prohibited substances, but the substances were contained in a legal ......