Eichmuller v. Sarasota Cnty. Gov't
| Decision Date | 08 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 8:20-cv-47-T-33SPF |
| Parties | BRIAN EICHMULLER, Plaintiff, v. SARASOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendant Sarasota County Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 38), filed on November 13, 2020. Plaintiff Brian Eichmuller responded on November 27, 2020. (Doc. # 44). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.
Eichmuller was hired by the County to work as a Skilled Trades Worker II in September 2018. (Doc. # 36 at Ex. 14). Eichmuller's job duties included "install[ing], replac[ing], and modify[ing] mechanical and electrical equipment located on and within Public Utilities facilities," and "perform[ing] lift station maintenance." (Doc. # 36 at Ex. 15). He worked in that position from September 17, 2018, to May 20, 2019. (Doc. # 36 at Ex. 14; Doc. # 36 at Ex. 19).
During the interview process, the County told Eichmuller that he would be required to obtain a Class A CDL license during his probationary period of employment, which is the first six months of employment. (Doc. # 35 at 33:23-37:2). The County sent Eichmuller a conditional letter of employment on September 7, 2018. (Doc. # 36 at Ex. 3). That letter stated: (Id.). The County then sent Eichmuller another letter confirming his employment on September 13, 2018. (Doc. # 36 at Ex. 14). That letter reiterated the Class A CDL requirement:
You also must obtain a CDL, Class A within six months from the date of your new assignment. You are unable to perform CDL duties until you obtain a CDL license and pass a CDL drug screen. If you are not successful, you may be separated from employment since you will not meet the minimum qualifications of the position.
(Id.). The confirmation letter noted that Eichmuller's six-month probation period would end on March 17, 2019. (Id.).
The process of obtaining a Class A CDL involves taking three written tests, at which point a Class A CDL permit is issued. (Doc. # 35 at 13:4-14:6). Subsequently, on a later date after the individual has had time to practice driving, the individual then takes a road test, which is administeredby the County's school board. (Id. at 37:6-40:1; Doc. # 36 at 49:17-50:8). If that road test is passed, then the final Class A CDL is issued. (Doc. # 35 at 37:6-40:1).
Once an employee passes the written exams and presents a copy of his CDL permit to his supervisor, it is the County's practice to have the County's water and wastewater operations manager, David Sell, issue a check for the cost of the road test and have the employee's supervisor then contact the school board to schedule the road test. (Id. at 36:6-19, 37:6-40:1; Doc. # 36 at 6:8-10, 49:17-50:8). Victor Carlano, Eichmuller's direct supervisor, testified that, after he would send the information to the school board requesting a road test, the school board would then notify him of the selected date for the road test. (Doc. # 37 at 38:18-25).
Eichmuller passed his written exams on January 22, 2019, and was issued a Class A CDL permit. (Doc. # 44-2 at 2). In February 2019, Eichmuller informed Carlano that he "was ready to take the road exam" and gave Carlano a copy of his Class A CDL permit. (Id.). A check for the cost of the road test was issued on March 7, 2019. (Doc. # 39 at Ex. 2).
It is unclear whether Carlano ever contacted the school board to schedule Eichmuller's road test. Sell testified that Carlano "contacted the place to schedule a test" but Sell didnot "know if a date was confirmed." (Doc. # 36 at 54:3-20). But Carlano had no memory of whether he had contacted the school board. (Doc. # 37 at 35:19-36:11). Although Carlano testified there would be emails and documentation if he had contacted the school board (Id. at 38:18-40:4, 43:24-44:16), the County has not presented such documentation. And, according to Eichmuller, he "was never advised by [] Carlano or anyone at the County that [his] Class A CDL road exam was scheduled." (Doc. # 44-2 at 2).
On February 27, 2019, Eichmuller "suffered injuries to [his] head, neck, knees, elbows and forearms when [he] fell from a ladder and struck [his] head on a pipe and [his] knees, elbows and forearms on the ground while performing [his] job duties for the County." (Doc. # 44-2 at 2). As required by the County and its workers' compensation administrator, John Eastern Company, Eichmuller went to an urgent care facility that day. (Id.). The urgent care provider "released [Eichmuller] to return to full duty work later the same day." (Id.).
Eichmuller "continued to perform [his] full job duties for the County without any assistance and/or accommodation from the date of [the] accident (February 27, 2019) through March 13, 2019." (Id.). But the assigned workers'compensation medical provider diagnosed Eichmuller with a neck sprain on March 14, 2019, and held Eichmuller out from work. (Id.).
Eichmuller was released to return to work with a light duty restriction on March 28, 2019. (Id.). According to Eichmuller, he was advised by the County that he "was not eligible to return to [the] Skilled Trades Worker II position" because of his medical restrictions. (Id. at 3). Eichmuller avers that, despite the medical restrictions on lifting, he "was still physically able to perform the lifting/moving requirements" of his job, as well as all of the other duties of his job. (Id. at 2).
Additionally, the County told Eichmuller that there was no light duty work available. (Id. at 3). Indeed, Sell testified that the County did not have any light duty assignments available and, as a result, Eichmuller remained out on leave. (Doc. # 36 at 44:16-45:2). However, the workers' compensation provider, Johns Eastern, stated in a letter dated March 28, 2019, that the County "can accommodate light or sedentary duty" and "has work available." (Doc. # 42 at Ex. 14 at 2). And Kimberly Parsons, a benefits specialist with the County, testified that the County informs JohnsEastern if it has light duty or sedentary work available for an employee. (Doc. # 42 at 49:10-51:2).
On March 7, 2019, Eichmuller had emailed various County employees, providing a description of his accident and expressing dissatisfaction with how his supervisor, Carlano, handled his accident and the workers' compensation process. (Doc. # 36 at Ex. 29 at 3). Later, while he was out on leave, Eichmuller complained to the County on April 30, 2019, about having to see the medical providers selected by the workers' compensation provider. (Doc. # 44-2 at 3). He asked the County for permission to be treated by his own primary care physician instead, but the County told him that he had to continue seeing the medical providers assigned by the workers' compensation company. (Id.).
Because he was out on workers' compensation leave, Eichmuller's probationary period — which was originally set to end on March 17, 2019 — was extended. (Doc. # 36 at 38:25-39:13; Doc. # 36 at Ex. 14). It is the County's policy that, when an employee goes out on leave, his probationary period is paused or tolled. (Doc. # 40 at 7:12-20, 13:15-14:12). As of May 20, 2019, Eichmuller was still on probation. (Doc. # 36 at 65:8-15; Doc. # 41 at 41:3-5).
On May 20, 2019, Eichmuller's employment was terminated. (Doc. # 36 at Ex. 19). The termination letter is titled "Notice of Unsuccessful Probationary Period" and states that the County "has elected to exercise its option to terminate your employment." (Id.). Sell testified that the sole reason Eichmuller was terminated was because he did not obtain a Class A CDL during the first six months of his employment. (Doc. # 36 at 33:17-34:3, 35:14-19).
It is undisputed that Eichmuller never obtained his Class A CDL license during his employment and never requested an extension of time to do so. (Doc. # 35 at 22:12-14, 45:13-17). Yet, at one point during his deposition, Sell agreed that the language of Eichmuller's employment letter meant that Eichmuller "needed to get a Class A CDL within his probationary period." (Doc. # 36 at 20:17-23). Similarly, Sherry Ball — a human resources business partner for the County — testified that it was her understanding that an employee in Eichmuller's position only had to obtain his CDL license by the time his probation had ended. (Doc. # 41-1 at 6:5-9, 29:24-30:2, 31:20-32:3). Nevertheless, Eichmuller was fired while still on probation. (Doc. # 36 at 65:8-15; Doc. # 41 at 41:3-5). At the time of his termination, Eichmuller's Class A CDL permit was still valid and it did not expire untilJuly 2019. (Doc. # 44-2 at 2). Carlano testified that Eichmuller would be able to perform his job duties with a Class A CDL permit. (Doc. # 35 at 14:7-9).
Additionally, based on a chart created by the County, it appears that multiple other Skilled Trade Workers were not fired for failing to obtain Class A CDL licenses within six months of their hire date. (Doc. # 44-6). And Sell admitted that Eichmuller is the only Skilled Trades Worker who was terminated for not having a Class A CDL license, let alone terminated for that while on probation. (Doc. # 36 at 44:5-14).
Eichmuller initiated this action against the County on January 7, 2020, asserting claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) (Count I) and workers' compensation retaliation in violation of Florida Statute § 440.205 (Count II). (Doc. # 1). The County filed its answer on February 4, 2020. (Doc. # 10). The case then proceeded through discovery.
The County now moves for summary judgment on all claims. (Doc. # 38). Eichmuller has responded (Doc. # 44), and the Motion is ripe for review.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial