Goode v. Am. Airlines Inc.

Decision Date20 September 2010
Docket NumberCase No. 08 CV 3967.
Citation741 F.Supp.2d 877
PartiesRichard J. GOODE, Plaintiff,v.AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

James T. Foley, Foley Law Group, LLC, Westmont, IL, for Plaintiff.Cardelle Bratton Spangler, Michael P. Roche, Amanda Cristy Wiley, Tiana Nell Evans, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT M. DOW, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiff Richard Goode (Plaintiff or “Goode”) was discharged by Defendant American Airlines Inc. (“American” or “the Airline”) on January 3, 2006. On July 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint in which he alleges that his dismissal constituted retaliatory discharge for exercising his rights under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (“IWCA”), 820 ILCS 305/4(h). After the close of discovery, American filed a motion for summary judgment [25] pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At the close of briefing on that motion, Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply [43], which the Court grants.1 For the reasons stated below, American's motion for summary judgment [25] also is granted.

I. Background

The Court takes the relevant facts primarily from the parties' Local Rule (“L.R.”) 56.1 statements: 2 Defendant's L.R. 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Material Facts (“Def. SOF”) [27], Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's L.R. 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Material Facts (“Pl. Resp. Def. SOF”) [32] and Statement of Additional Facts (“Pl. SOAF”) [30], and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Facts (Def. Resp. Pl. SOAF) [38].3

A. Plaintiff's Employment Record at American

Plaintiff began working for American as a Fleet Service Clerk in October 1989. Pl. Resp. Def. SOF ¶ 7. Plaintiff's primary responsibility in this position was handling baggage for the Airline, and he served in that capacity up to the date of his termination. Id. ¶ 9. As a union member, the terms and conditions of his employment were governed by his union's Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with American as well as the Airline's Rules of Conduct, 4 which apply to all employees, including Fleet Service Clerks. Id. ¶ 4, 8. Prior to December 2005, Plaintiff reported suffering fifteen injuries on the job, twelve of which caused him either to work light-duty or take time off from work. Id. ¶ 18–19. Five of these injuries occurred in the five years immediately preceding Plaintiff's December 4, 2005 injury. Pl. SOAF ¶ 10. Plaintiff also was disciplined by American several times during this period, but neither party suggests that Plaintiff's dismissal was in any way related to his disciplinary record. Pl. Resp. Def. SOF ¶ 10–17.

B. The December 4, 2005 Injury

The present claim arises out of a series of events beginning in December 2005 that culminated in Plaintiff's dismissal on January 3, 2006. Pl. SOAF ¶ 1. On December 4, 2005, while he was helping to unload a plane, Plaintiff injured his back in the process of lifting a heavy bag. Def. SOF ¶ 22. Immediately after being injured, Plaintiff reported the incident to his supervisor, who helped Plaintiff complete an online injury form. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff's supervisor also gave him a copy of the Ground Employee Injury–on–Duty Information Package (“IOD Package”), which explains to injured employees,

It is your responsibility to accurately convey your physical capabilities to your physician. A completed Physical Capabilities Analysis form (PCAF) is required after your first doctor's visit. You may be requested to provide additional PCAFs during your time away from work due to your injury-on-duty. Once your doctor completes the form, you are responsible to forward it to the AA workers' Compensation Department. Def. SOF ¶ 24.

Under the heading “Assigned Work Restrictions,” the Package also instructs the injured employee to [e]nsure you understand the treating doctor's assigned restrictions and do not exceed them. If asked to perform a task that exceeds your restricts, ask your supervisor to review your restrictions and immediately inform your SRS adjuster.” Pl. Resp. Def. SOF ¶ 25. Plaintiff read the IOD Package and signed the last page to indicate that he had done so. Id. ¶ 26.

As part of his IOD Package, Plaintiff also received a blank Physical Capabilities Analysis Form (“PCAF”) for his doctor to fill out and return (via fax) to American. Deposition of Richard J. Goode (“Goode Dep.”) at 269. The PCAF instructs the doctor, in relevant part, that The physical capabilities you indicate should closely reflect the capabilities of the employee as he/she conveys them to you. [sic] in addition to any further restrictions imposed by you, as part of the treatment and recovery process. * * * Please provide [American] with the specific physical capabilities, even if it is your intent for the employee to remain off work and continue treatment. Id. Exh. 24.

Below this statement, the form provides space for the doctor to indicate whether or not the employee can return to work and, regardless of that response, specify what physical movement the employee is capable of performing. Id.C. Dr. Knight's Examination

The following day, on December 5, 2005, Plaintiff visited the Advocate Medical Group at the Nesset Pavilion where he was examined by Dr. Margaret Knight. Pl. Resp. Def. SOF ¶ 27. Although this was Plaintiff's regular doctor's office, he had never met Dr. Knight prior to this occasion. Id. During his examination, Plaintiff gave Dr. Knight the PCAF, which she completed and faxed to American. Id. ¶ 28. Dr. Knight indicated that Plaintiff should not return to work. Id. ¶ 29. She also provided details about Plaintiff's physical capabilities in the appropriate sections. In the first such section, which asks the doctor to “note how long the individual is capable of [sitting, standing, walking, and driving],” Dr. Knight circled zero (0) hours for all four abilities. Goode Dep. Exh. 24. In the second section, which asked her to “check the maximum limit and frequency” that Plaintiff was capable of lifting or carrying, Dr. Knight drew a single line through the boxes corresponding to “never” for each of the five weight categories (the lowest of which is 1–10 lbs). Id. Finally, in the third section, which asked her to check the frequency with which Plaintiff was capable of certain activities, including climbing, “bending/stooping,” “pushing/pulling,” and “keyboarding,” Dr. Knight drew another vertical line indicating that Plaintiff was “never” 5 capable of all nine activities. Id.

Neither party disputes the authenticity of this document; rather, they contest two closely related facts: (1) whether or not Dr. Knight showed Plaintiff what she had written on the PCAF (or otherwise instructed Plaintiff that he was not to engage in any of the activities listed on it); and (2) whether or not the doctor's responses on the PCAF amount to a general proscription from all of the listed activities, even when the employee is not on-the-job. Pl. Resp. Def. SOF ¶ 28–32. Plaintiff maintains that Dr. Knight faxed the form to American without showing him what she had written. Id. ¶ 28. In addition, Plaintiff denies that Dr. Knight explained to him at any time that he was not supposed to perform any of the activities listed on the form. Id. ¶ 32. Meanwhile, American has produced a declaration from Dr. Knight stating that it was her intention that the restrictions on the PCAF apply generally—not just when Plaintiff was at work—and that Plaintiff had “sustained a severe injury and * * * should generally be bed bound.” Declaration of Margaret Knight ¶ 8–9.6 Dr. Knight also stated that it was her “usual practice to review forms with patients and to communicate their restrictions to them to enable them to heal from their injuries,” but she also revealed that she could not “specifically recall reviewing the form with Mr. Goode.” Id. ¶ 10.

D. American's Communications with Plaintiff and Surveillance of His Activities

Beginning on December 5, 2005, the day of Plaintiff's examination by Dr. Knight, Leslie Crowe, an Injury Manager for American, reviewed Plaintiff's injury report and called her supervisor, Debbie Havens, American's Manager of Lost Time and Security, to recommend that American initiate surveillance on Plaintiff. Pl. SOAF ¶ 11, 16, 17. Crowe later explained that she took this action because “it didn't seem to add up to why [Plaintiff] was completely off work from lifting a bag—lifting a heavy bag from the floor and placing it on a cart” and that she was concerned “that the employee was lifting a bag, which he does all the time * * * and then his [PCAF] comes back, and he has that he cannot do anything.” Id. ¶ 17; Crowe Dep. Tr. at 38:19–40:18.7 Havens followed Crowe's recommendation and authorized surveillance of Plaintiff. Pl. SOAF ¶ 11. The following day, December 6, Crowe spoke with Plaintiff about his injury and assured him that he would not receive any type of discipline or negative attendance notation for missing work and asked him to let her know how he was doing after his next doctor's appointment. Def. SOF ¶ 33.

American's surveillance of Plaintiff began three days after his injury, on December 7, when Patrick Harrington and Don Eichmann, two members of American's Corporate Security Department, witnessed Plaintiff driving from his home to a gas station and then driving away. Id. ¶ 36. Later that week, an investigative company hired by American, Acumen Probe, conducted multiple rounds of surveillance on Plaintiff's apartment on December 10 and 11, but the company's agents did not find Plaintiff's car at his apartment until 10:00 p.m. on December 11.8 Id. ¶ 37. On December 12, Harrington and Eichmann again tracked Plaintiff and saw him drive into his apartment parking lot and exit his car carrying a plastic bag. Id. ¶ 3 8.

Plaintiff visited Dr. Knight for a second appointment on ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Reid v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of Am.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 14, 2013
    ...Hugo v. Tomaszewski, 155 Ill. App. 3d 906, 910, 108 Ill. Dec. 562, 508 N.E.2d 1139 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)); Goode v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 877, 891 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (analyzing Illinois retaliatory discharge claim). Nonetheless, "it remains plaintiff's burden to prove the element......
  • Williams v. Office of the Chief Judge of Cook Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 21, 2015
    ...Corp. of Am., No. 11 C 8683, 2013 WL 1087557, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2013), aff'd, 749 F.3d 581; Goode v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 877, 893-94 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ("Plaintiff is confusing necessary with sufficient conditions." (quotation marks omitted)) (citing Casanova v. Am. A......
  • Welch v. Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, 11 CV 7685
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 26, 2013
    ...workers' compensation claim, seeking medical treatment, or otherwise asserting a right under [the Act]." See Goode v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 877, 891 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (citing Burgess v. Chicago Sun-Times, 132 Ill. App. 3d 181, 476 N.E.2d 1284, 1287 (1st Dist. 1985); Thomas v. Z......
  • Smith v. R.R. Donnelley, 10-1417
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 16, 2011
    ...for workers' compensation benefits, employer not entitled to summary judgment on retaliation claim). 6.See Goode v. American Airlines, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 877, 891 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (an employee who completed an injury report on the date of the work accident "began the process of asserting......
  • 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