Copenhaver v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:19-cv-00079-CWD |
| Parties | ERIC J. COPENHAVER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation, BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a company, LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, a company, JOHN DOE I-X, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment relating to Defendants Baxter International, Inc.'s and Baxter Healthcare Corporation's termination of Plaintiff Eric Copenhaver's employment. Copenhaver filed this action alleging a violation of Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, by all Defendants, and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12111, by the two Baxter Defendants. In a prior memorandum decision and order limited to the ERISA claim, the Court granted partial summary judgment to Copenhaver and denied Defendants' cross-motion. (Dkt. 41.)
The parties have now filed cross-motions limited to Copenhaver's ADA claim asserted against Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corporation ("Baxter"). Baxter seeks dismissal of Copenhaver's ADA claim in its entirety, while Copenhaver seeks summary judgment limited to the issue of liability.
The Court conducted a video hearing on December 8, 2020. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, the record, and the applicable legal authorities, the Court will deny the motions, as discussed below.
Copenhaver worked for Baxter International, Inc. in the position of Service Specialist. The position required Copenhaver to, among other duties, deliver and pick up products for kidney dialysis patients and dialysis clinics utilizing a Class B CDL vehicle. Baxter Service Specialist Job Description, Dkt. 42-4 at 38 - 40. According to the job description, the position required driving a CDL vehicle, and the physical capability to hand carry stock. This involved heavy physical work with frequent lifting, and the ability to carry objects weighing 25-37 pounds or more on a repetitive basis, as follows:
An average delivery consists of 30 cases, at 824 pounds. Each case is lifted from the floor of the truck, or stack, (possibly chest high), and placed on a hand truck, wheeled into a patient's home, then lifted off the hand truck and placed on the floor, or lifted onto an existing stack. In a warehouse 15%. In truck driving 40%. In patients home making deliveries 45%. Hazards include...Pushing and pulling a hand truck loaded (total weight of 165-200 lbs). Some are deadlifts up stairs, into basements, attics, or into a garage. Often requires pulling out an aluminum ramp or liftgate from the truck. Manual lifting of cartons.
Essential job functions were broken down as percentages:
Copenhaver was one of two Baxter employees - both service specialists - in the state of Idaho. Decl. of Ken Lober ¶ 4. (Dkt. 42-2 at 2.) Copenhaver and his co-worker were responsible for delivering Baxter's medical products to critically ill patients throughout Idaho. Id. Baxter considers the delivery of supplies to patients to be a one-person job. Id. ¶ 6.
On July 22, 2017, Copenhaver submitted a claim for short term disability (STD) benefits alleging disability due to chronic pain in his shoulders limiting his range of motion and impairing his ability to lift and carry. AR 91, 407, 595.1 Copenhaver was granted a leave of absence at that time. Lober Decl. ¶ 8. (Dkt. 42-2 at 3.) Baxter hired a temporary leased driver from a staffing agency to fill Copenhaver's job as a service specialist at a rate of $40 - $45 per hour, as opposed to the $25 per hour wage paid to Copenhaver. Lober Decl. ¶ 9. (Dkt. 42-2 at 3.)
Liberty approved Copenhaver's request for STD benefits, and he began receiving benefits as of August 1, 2017. AR 132. Liberty extended benefits through December 4,2017, at which time Liberty denied further extension of Copenhaver's STD benefits. AR 487, 397 - 400.
On or about December 6, 2017,2 Copenhaver telephoned Scot Emil, Baxter's Human Resources representative, concerning Copenhaver's appeal of Liberty's denial of further STD benefits. Emil Depo. at 85 - 87. (Dkt. 42-4 at 65 - 66.) The substance of this telephone conversation is disputed. After the telephone call, Copenhaver followed up with Emil via email on December 6, 2017, requesting a copy of the job description for the Baxter Service Specialist position to facilitate his appeal of Liberty's decision to deny an extension of STD benefits. (Dkt. 44-3 at 30.) Emil responded to Copenhaver's email on December 8, 2017, as follows: (Dkt. 44-3 at 30.) Baxter extended Copenhaver's leave of absence at that time.3
Copenhaver appealed Liberty's termination of benefits decision on January 25, 2018, and on March 9, 2018, Liberty affirmed its denial of continued benefits. AR 407 - 411.
On March 19, 2018, Copenhaver requested a return to work with accommodation to light duty. (See Dkt. 42-4 at 42.) (). Copenhaver indicated also that he would need to renew his DOT medical card before he could begin driving again, as it had expired while he was on leave. (Dkt. 44-3 at 34.) Copenhaver suggested that he be permitted to return to his position as a Service Specialist performing the driving responsibilities only, while another individual handled the lifting requirements of the position. Lober Decl. ¶ 11. (Dkt. 42-2 at 4.)
Copenhaver provided Baxter with his most recent medical treatment notes, dated February 8, 2018, which explained his current condition and physical restrictions. (Dkt. 44-3 at 34 - 36.) These restrictions included no lifting overhead or chest high lifting, and no repetitive lifting greater than 20 lbs. (Dkt. 44-3 at 36.) Copenhaver's physician recorded that, "[a] complete functional capacity exam] may be helpful to fully evaluate his abilities....he is not able to perform the substantial and material duties of his job because of his pain and decreased bilateral shoulder range of motion as indicated above." (Dkt. 44-3 at 36.) The treatment note indicated also that "the natural history of [the healing] process takes 18-24 months total." (Dkt. 44-3 at 36.)
Thereafter, on March 20, 2018, Debra Bush, a Baxter Occupational Health Nurse, Scott Emil, Baxter's Human Resources representative, and Ken Lober, Baxter's Director of U.S. Supply Chain, met to discuss Copenhaver's return to work request and potential options for accommodation. Lober Decl. ¶ 14. (Dkt. 42-2 at 4.)
One day later, on March 21, 2018, Baxter decided to terminate Copenhaver's employment effective March 26, 2018, stating in the termination letter: (Dkt 44-3 at 38.) Baxter's letter further stated, "[i]t is not reasonable for Baxter to continue to leave your position open at this time."
In its prior memorandum decision, the Court determined that Copenhaver could not perform the material functions of his job as a service specialist based upon the reports of Copenhaver's treatment providers indicating that he could not lift objects 25 - 37 pounds or more on a repetitive basis, and that these limitations existed in July of 2017 and in March of 2018.
Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to any claim or defense, "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment "is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims...." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). There must be a genuine dispute as to any material fact - a fact "that may affect the outcome of the case." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the Court must not make credibility findings. Id. at 255. Direct testimony of the non-movant must be believed, however implausible. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). On the other hand, the Court is not required to adopt unreasonableinferences from circumstantial evidence. McLaughlin v. Liu, 849 F.2d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 1988).
When cross-motions for summary judgment are filed, the Court must independently search the record for factual disputes. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). The filing of cross-motions for summary judgment - where both parties essentially assert that there are no material factual disputes - does not vitiate the court's responsibility to determine whether disputes as to material fact are present. Id.
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute as to material fact. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001)(en banc). To carry this burden, the moving party need not introduce any affirmative evidence (such as affidavits or deposition excerpts) but may simply point out the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir. 2000).
This shifts...
To continue reading
Request your trial