Chaniott v. DCI Donor Servs., Inc.

Decision Date24 August 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 3:19-cv-00222
Parties David CHANIOTT, Plaintiff, v. DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

Anne Hunter, Ashley S. Walter, Heather M. Collins, Collins & Hunter PLLC, Brentwood, TN, Paige M. Lyle, Klein Solomon Mills, PLLC, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff.

Laura Mallory, Robert W. Horton, Timothy K. Garrett, Bass, Berry & Sims, Nashville, TN, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

ALETA A. TRAUGER, United States District Judge

DCI Donor Services, Inc. ("DCI") has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 24), to which David Chaniott has filed a Response (Docket No. 35), and DCI has filed a Reply (Docket No. 39). For the reasons set out herein, the motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

DCI is an organization that operates tissue banks and organ procurement organizations. (Docket No. 26-5 ¶ 2.) Chaniott began working for DCI as a donation specialist in January of 2014. (Docket No. 401 ¶ 1.) Chaniott was originally assigned to the night shift—6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.—where he remained until, in 2016, he was transferred to "mid shift"—a twelve-hour shift beginning around mid-day. (Id. ¶¶ 2–3.) In 2017, he was moved to day shift. (Id. ¶ 4.) While Chaniott was assigned to the night shift, he experienced physical symptoms associated with anxiety, including inability to catch his breath, heart pounding, fear, inability to focus, and exhaustion. (Id. (Add'l Statement) ¶ 2.) Chaniott testified in his deposition that, when he was on the day shift, his symptoms improved, and he realized how much he had been struggling while on the night shift. He was offered a promotion to a better-paying position that would have required him to return to the night shift, and he turned it down. (Docket No. 36-1 at 29–31.)

On March 22, 2018, Chaniott was informed that he was being reassigned back to the night shift. (Docket No. 40 ¶ 5.) He describes the reassignment as bringing on a "4-day long panic attack." (Id. (Add'l Statement) ¶ 6.) On March 26, 2018, he had his first night shift of the reassignment. (Id. ¶ 6.) The next day, he spoke on the telephone with several DCI managers and employees—specifically, Senior Human Resources Generalist Joe Garavaglia, Corporate Executive Director Jill Grandas, Director of Human Resources Teresa Bledsoe, and a colleague of Chaniott's named Jeff—about his work schedule going forward. He told them that he believed that he was unable to work the night shift for a medical reason. (Id. ¶ 7.) Chaniott later explained to Garavaglia that the health issue was mental health-related, but he did not provide the details of any diagnosis or symptoms. (Id. ¶ 8.)

On March 27, 2018, Chaniott had a phone call with Bledsoe and Garavaglia to discuss the situation and to inform them that he would be calling in sick for the next two shifts. (Id. ¶ 10; Docket No. 26-5 ¶ 3.) Chaniott explained that he suffered from anxiety and depression and was under the care of a psychologist. He explained that he had struggled with these mental health symptoms for years and had come to understand that working the night shift exacerbated them. As the discussion of Chaniott's symptoms continued, he further explained that his depression and anxiety we accompanied by a form of behavioral addiction.2 According to Chaniott, the reason he disclosed the nature of his addiction was that Bledsoe told him he would have to do so. (Docket No. 40 ¶¶ 11–13.)

Chaniott explained that, because of the effect that the night shift had on his anxiety and depression, he would medically need to be excused from his upcoming shifts and would ultimately need to be reassigned to the day shift. Bledsoe informed him that he would need a doctor's note for any absences. According to Bledsoe, she also recommended that he get a health care provider's opinion regarding whether he could work the night shift. Chaniott testified that Bledsoe did tell him about the need for a note for absences, but he says that he does not recall being told that he would need a doctor's note to substantiate his need to be moved to the day shift. (Id. ¶ 14.)

DCI concedes that Bledsoe never gave Chaniott any paperwork for his healthcare provider to fill out. DCI also concedes that its "interactive [Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")] process is supposed to include giving the employee documents along with the job description so it would be clear to the employee's doctor to define their limitations and identify if the disability is permanent or temporary so that HR can then assess the employee's position to determine whether they can make a reasonable accommodation." (Id. (Add'l Statement) ¶¶ 8, 11–13.) Bledsoe and Garavaglia, however, testified that it was DCI's policy only to provide the paperwork after receiving, from the employee's physician, an "initial notification of what [the employee's] diagnosis or work restrictions were"—that is, an initial doctor's note. (Docket No. 36-2 at 48; Docket No. 36-3 at. 38). Bledsoe told Chaniott not to come in to work for the time being, which she testified was in direct response to learning of his addiction. (Docket No. 36-2 at 42.)

On March 31, 2018, Chaniott obtained a note from a treating physician, Dr. Daniel Woods, stating, "Mr. David Chaniott has provided informed consent to report that he attended a consultation at this office on Wednesday, March 28, 2018 and that he intends to continue future consultations." The note did not discuss any necessary restrictions or work accommodations for Chaniott. He provided the note to DCI. (Id. ¶¶ 17–19.)

On April 3, 2018, Chaniott met with Bledsoe and Garavaglia. (Id. ¶ 20.) Although the parties differ in their characterizations of the conversation, they agree that Bledsoe told Chaniott that, in order for DCI to grant him a disability-related shift accommodation, he would need to provide a letter from a physician stating that an accommodation was necessary. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 21.) DCI concedes that, during this discussion, Bledsoe focused exclusively on Chaniott's behavioral addiction—perhaps the most salacious aspect of his claimed symptoms, but not actually the one he was seeking accommodation for. (Docket No. 40 (Add'l Statement) ¶ 27.) In her deposition testimony, Bledsoe explained that her focus on Chaniott's addiction, rather than on his alleged depression or anxiety, was because she believed, based on their conversations, that the depression and anxiety were a result of the addiction. (Docket No. 36-2 at 62.) Bledsoe's notes from this conversation confirm that she was concerned about the possibility of "potential employer liability" arising out of Chaniott's potential addiction-related behavior toward or around other employees. (Docket No. 36-10 at 2.)

On April 4, 2018, Chaniott saw Dr. Wood again and requested a note regarding his work limitations. Dr. Wood was unwilling to provide a note at that time. Chaniott maintains that this was because Dr. Wood wished for him to see an occupational specialist for a more expert opinion. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 22.) On April 5, 2018, Chaniott emailed Bledsoe to inform her that Dr. Wood was unable to "give an opinion one way or another if I am able to work." Chaniott explained that Dr. Wood had told him that he would need to see an occupational specialist, and he asked Bledsoe if she knew where he could find one. (Docket No. 40 ¶ 23.) Chaniott also asked Bledsoe if he could use the company's Extended Sick Bank, or "ESB," for his absences, but Bledsoe responded by telephone that, to do so, he would need adequate medical documentation. (Docket No. 36-10 at 3–4.)

On April 6, 2018, Chaniott spoke on the phone to Garavaglia and Bledsoe. Bledsoe complained about not yet having documentation to support Chaniott's requested reassignment, and she told him that some at DCI were beginning to become suspicious that he simply wanted to avoid the night shift but did not have a disability that required him to do so. (Docket No. 40 ¶¶ 26–27.) Bledsoe's notes documenting this discussion confirm her continued concern that Chaniott might engage in behavior related to his addiction that would pose a problem for the company. The notes state that she told him that, even if he obtained a note documenting his condition and need for an accommodation, he might still not be allowed to return to work. According to the notes, she also told him that she would be unable to refer him to an occupational specialist. (Docket No. 36-10 at 4.)

The scheduling of hours at DCI was handled by a man named Nathan Luttrell. In early April, amidst Chaniott's discussions with Bledsoe, Chaniott communicated with Luttrell, and Luttrell scheduled him for a day shift. Luttrell also told Chaniott that Luttrell and another DCI decisionmaker had decided to return him to the day shift. Apparently, however, no such decision had been finalized, and it is unclear whether reassigning him to day shift would have been consistent with the company's needs at the time. (Docket No. 40 (Add'l Statement) ¶¶ 21–25.) Bledsoe continued to tell Chaniott not to return to work. (Id. (Add'l Statement) ¶ 26.)

On April 11, 2018, Chaniott saw Dr. Wood again and obtained a letter addressing the issues that Dr. Wood was willing to address. Dr. Wood wrote:

Mr. David Chaniott has provided informed consent to report that he is currently receiving ongoing treatment for depressed and anxious mood

.

Further, Mr. Chaniott has encountered debilitating sleep disturbance and mood deterioration when fulfilling a night shift schedule in the past. Currently, it can be expected that such a shift would exacerbate mood and sleep difficulties if accommodation for alternative work shifts cannot be implemented.

(Docket No. 36-9 at 3.)

In the meantime, however, DCI had decided to terminate Chaniott. According to Bledsoe, she had come to believe that Chaniott was not being honest with her or the company about his supposed disability and was merely attempting to avoid the night shift. This behavior, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Jones v. McDonough
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 15 Marzo 2021
    ...definition applies to her. 9. The court notes that the facts of this case are distinguishable from those of Chaniott v. DCI Donor Servs., Inc., 481 F. Supp. 3d 712 (M.D. Tenn. 2020), in which the undersigned denied a motion for summary judgment, rejecting the defendant's argument that the p......
  • Russo v. Johnson & Steele, LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ... ... inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, ... Inc. v. Treesh , 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007); ... Inge v. Rock ... (6th Cir. 1996)); see also Chaniott v. DCI Donor Servs., ... Inc. , 481 F.Supp.3d 712, 721 (M.D. Tenn ... ...
  • Russo v. Johnson & Steele, LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ... ... inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, ... Inc. v. Treesh , 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007); ... Inge v. Rock ... (6th Cir. 1996)); see also Chaniott v. DCI Donor Servs., ... Inc. , 481 F.Supp.3d 712, 721 (M.D. Tenn ... ...
  • Sallaj v. Tate
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 8 Diciembre 2022
    ... ... factual inferences, DirectTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 ... F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007), or credit ... Eidson v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., ... 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir. 2007) ... Chaniott v. DCI Donor Servs., Inc., 481 F.Supp.3d ... 712, 721 (M.D. Tenn ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT