Buckmaster v. The Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.

• Decision Date: 11 April 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action RDB-19-3203
• Parties: KEITH BUCKMASTER, Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION d/b/a AMTRAK, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

KEITH BUCKMASTER, Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION d/b/a AMTRAK, Defendant.

Civil Action No. RDB-19-3203

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge

Plaintiff Keith Buckmaster (“Buckmaster”) brings this employment discrimination cas against the National Railroad Passenger Company, doing business as Amtrak, alleging assorte violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; the Famil and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; the Maryland Fair Employmen Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-601 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Buckmaster is a former Amtrak employee who was terminated afte being formally disciplined for poor performance and taking fifty-eight days of paid absenc without providing documentation to substantiate his need for medical leave, as required b Amtrak policy. (Buckmaster's Resp. Opp. 11, 15, ECF No. 52; Amtrak's Mem. Supp. 1-2, 5 ECF No. 51-1.) He now claims that Amtrak discriminated against him on the basis of hi disability, interfered with his right to seek FMLA leave failed to reasonably accommodate hi back and neck injuries and retaliated against him for requesting medical leave and reportin disability discrimination. (Resp. Opp. 1-2.)

Now pending is Amtrak's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No 51). In support of this motion, Amtrak contends that Buckmaster offers no evidence of discrimination or retaliation, beyond his “own subjective speculation and personal disagreement with Amtrak's legitimate business decision to . . . terminate his employment.” (Mem. Supp. 2.) Amtrak also contends that Buckmaster failed to timely submit his medical documentation in compliance with the FMLA, despite multiple intervening extensions and warnings by Amtrak. (Id. at 2-3.) The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons set forth below, Amtrak's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

I. Amtrak's Antidiscrimination and Family and Medical Leave Act Policies

Defendant National Railroad Passenger Company, commonly known as Amtrak (“Amtrak”), runs passenger trains throughout the United States, operating over 21, 000 miles of track in 46 states and the District Columbia. (Ex. A, Decl. of LaToya Warner [“Warner Decl.”] ¶ 3, ECF No. 51-2.) As a nationwide employer and a recipient of federal funds, Amtrak maintains several policies that prohibit workplace discrimination in compliance with federal statutes, including: (1) Amtrak's Standards of Excellence; (2) an Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy; (3) a Reasonable Accommodation Policy; and (4) a Family and Medical Leave Act policy. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6-9, Ex. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6; see Dep. of LaToya Warner (“Warner Dep.”) 24:19-25:1, 30:2-24, 63:7-12, ECF No. 51-10.)

As relevant here, the latter policy requires employers “to provide a completed medical certification from a health care provider” as a prerequisite to taking leave under the FMLA.

(FMLA Policy 000060, ECF No. 51-2 Ex. 6.) “Failure to timely submit documentation required by Amtrak or submitting inaccurate or incomplete documentation may result in leave being delayed or denied.” (Id.; see also Warner Dep. 63:21-64:2 (attesting that an employee who fails to comply with the FMLA policy “can be held to the national attendance policy” or “separated from the organization”) However, Amtrak places employees on leave pending documentation following three to five workdays' absence and communication of the medical issue to a supervisor. (Warner Dep. 68:10-15.) Amtrak has previously provided FMLA leave to two of Buckmaster's co-workers who submitted the medical documentation required by Amtrak's FMLA policy. (Mem. Supp. 8 n.3; see Amtrak's Objections and Responses to Second Set of Interrogs. No. 2, ECF No. 51-9.)

II. Buckmaster's Employment with Amtrak

Plaintiff Keith Buckmaster (“Buckmaster”) is a former Amtrak employee, and a resident of Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.)^[1] Amtrak hired Buckmaster in 2009 as a Substation Electrician based in Philadelphia's 30th Street Station. (Pl.'s Dep. [“Buckmaster Dep.”] 16:24-17:3, ECF Nos. 51-3, 52-2; Amtrak's First Supp. Resp. to Pl.'s First Set of Interrog. No. 16, ECF No. 51-4.) Buckmaster claims, and Amtrak does not contest, that he has suffered from back and neck pain since either 2005 or 2007. (Buckmaster Dep. 92:8-11.) Buckmaster also suffers from recurring kidney stones: He was diagnosed with kidney stones in 2011 and 2013, and he received surgery for this condition four times during his employment with Amtrak. (Id. 84:4-24.) Buckmaster was terminated on November 30, 2017, after failing to timely submit medical documentation for fifty-eight days of paid absence on account of his kidney stones. (Termination Letter, ECF No. 52-25.)

In August 2011, Buckmaster was in a car accident while driving an Amtrak vehicle, and received back, neck, and knee injuries. (Id. 19:20-21, 93:2-12, 95:5-7, 143:13-16.) He was hospitalized for a week after the wreck, and then took a leave of absence in full compliance with Amtrak's FMLA policy. (Id. 19:20-24, 21:4-6; see also Warner Decl. Ex. 7.) Amtrak also sent Buckmaster to the Laser Spine Center in Tampa Bay, Florida, for surgery. (Buckmaster Dep. 97:13-24.) Despite this treatment, Buckmaster began to experience lingering neck and back pain when standing or sitting in one position for too long. (Id. 93:2-12, 97:13-98:19.) Buckmaster requested reassignment to a position that would better accommodate his lingering neck and back injuries. (Id. 21:2-12; Amtrak First Interrog Resp. No. 16; see also Warner Decl. Ex. 8.)

In 2013, Amtrak granted Buckmaster's reassignment request, and transferred him to a less physically demanding Safety Trainer role with Specialist Training and Development in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Buckmaster Dep. 21:2-12, 23:9-11; Amtrak First Interrog Resp. No. 16; Warner Decl. Ex. 8.) In this position, Buckmaster initially reported to an Amtrak employee named Debbie Pirrami. (Buckmaster Dep. 93:2-94:8.) At the time of his transfer, Buckmaster informed Pirrami that he could not stand in one position or drive for long periods of time without aggravating his injuries-and requested assurances that he would spend less than 50% of his time on the road. (Id. 95:12-96:7, 104:15-22.) Pirrami allegedly informed him that he would not be required to stand for eight hours each day, that there is never only one trainer in a single location, and that nobody was ever asked to spend half their hours travelling. (Id. 95:19-96:7.) Buckmaster did not bring up any potential limitations regarding the distance of his commute. (Id. 96:8-22.)

In July 2015, Buckmaster applied for and received a Senior Technical Trainer position with the Safety Training organizational unit in Baltimore, Maryland. (Id. 37:24-38:6; Warner Decl. Ex. 8.) In this new position, Buckmaster provided remote training to “all employees over the United States, ” with limited travel to Philadelphia, Lancaster, Baltimore, and other locations over a two-year span. (Buckmaster Dep. 39:2-8.) The Safety Training unit dissolved in February 2017, at which time Buckmaster was laterally transferred to a Senior Technical Trainer role with the Engineering Department in Philadelphia. (Id. 40:14-41:3; see also Amtrak First Interrog. Resp. No. 16.) Around this time, Richard Misner, a trainer assigned to the Baltimore location, took an extended leave. (Kevin McCarthy's Dep. [“McCarthy Dep.”] 18:3- 19:1, ECF No. 51-5.) Buckmaster periodically covered Misner's training courses in Baltimore but did not change his primary work location. (Id. 17:7-18:12, 20:3-22.)^[2] He claims that travelling to Baltimore exacerbated his back pain, and that other trainers in comparable positions were transferred to be closer to home, despite his comparative seniority. (Buckmaster Dep. 23:2-24:6, 26:1-22.)

III. Buckmaster's Performance Issues

Beginning in March 2017, Buckmaster was supervised by Kevin McCarthy. (McCarthy Dep. 12:1-22; Buckmaster Dep. 42:13-23; Amtrak First Interrog Resp. No. 16.) McCarthy insists that Buckmaster “never discussed back pain or the burden of driving to Baltimore” with him. (McCarthy Dep. 19:3-24.) Buckmaster claims that he informed McCarthy of his neck and back injuries, and asked Amtrak to appoint another trainer, reduce his driving load, or grant permission to work from home, but was told these requests “would never happen.” (Buckmaster Dep. 99:3-22, 142:12-23, 143:12-20; Buckmaster's Ans. to Amtrak's First Set of Interrogs. No. 13.) He contends that McCarthy “made [him] do more work than . . . one single person could do alone, ” and that he refused to grant any of these requests despite knowledge of the physical toll that the position was exacting on Buckmaster. (Buckmaster Dep. 140:22- 141:3; Buckmaster's First Interrog. Ans. Nos. 13-14.) He claims that he informed McCarthy he was experiencing discrimination, and that McCarthy responded: “Yes, I know.” (Buckmaster's First Interrog. Ans. No. 18.)

Shortly following his transfer, McCarthy began to express concerns with Buckmaster's performance. (Declaration of Kevin McCarthy (“McCarthy Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9, ECF No. 51-6.) According to McCarthy, Buckmaster was late to work on McCarthy's first day as Buckmaster's supervisor and fabricated an excuse for his tardiness. (McCarthy Dep 12:13-18; McCarthy Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.) On March 7, 2017, Buckmaster was issued a formal counseling statement for this incident. (First Counseling Statement, ECF No. 52-7.) Through this document, McCarthy instructed Buckmaster to keep a schedule for...