Hamilton v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 August 1995
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 3:94-CV-731BN.
• Citation: 894 F. Supp. 1014
• Parties: Billy J. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

894 F. Supp. 1014

Billy J. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 3:94-CV-731BN.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.

August 9, 1995.

Richard A. Courtney, Frascogna, Courtney, Wright & Biederharn, Jackson, MS, Mark Randall Holmes, W. Stewart Robison, Robison & Harbour, McComb, MS, for Billy J. Hamilton.

Rachael A. Hetherington, Charles T. Ozier, Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, Jackson, MS, for Illinois Cent. R. Co.

OPINION AND ORDER

BARBOUR, Chief Judge.

The Court has before it the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company ("ICR"). Having considered the supporting and opposing memoranda and the attached exhibits, the Court rules that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is well taken and should be granted, and Plaintiff's cause of action should be dismissed with prejudice.

I. Background

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Billy Hamilton ("Hamilton") commenced this lawsuit against Defendant ICR alleging unlawful discrimination in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("the Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. In response, ICR filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to Strike. Finding the Motion for Summary Judgment premature, the Court entered an Order on February 17, 1995, to hold in abeyance a ruling on the motion pending further discovery on the issue presented therein. By way of a June 5, 1995, Order, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss and granted the Motion to Strike. However, with respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court continued to abide by its previous Order to await additional discovery and left outstanding a ruling on the motion. The parties have since advised the Court that discovery is complete on the issue presented in Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the motion is now properly before the Court for consideration.

B. Facts

For the purposes of the present motion, the following facts are undisputed:

By 1988, Plaintiff Billy Hamilton had been employed as a locomotive engineer for ICR for fifteen years. He underwent surgery for removal of an acoustic tumor in June of that year. In December of 1988, Hamilton's treating physician, Dr. John Shea, III, released Hamilton to return to work with the restriction that he wear hearing protection to protect his remaining hearing. On January 19, 1989, the ICR Chief Medical Officer certified Hamilton as physically qualified to return to work with the accommodation that he was to wear hearing protection at all times while on duty. ICR then advised Hamilton that, for safety reasons, it could not accommodate the hearing protection restrictions and refused to allow him to return to his employment as an engineer. However, in January of 1993, ICR reinstated Hamilton to his former position with the required hearing protection.

In the present action, Hamilton asserts that the refusal of ICR to reinstate him to his employment following his surgery comprised unlawful discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 — 797 (1985 & Supp.1995). Hamilton seeks compensation for the wages he lost during his employment hiatus. ICR contends in its present Motion for Summary Judgment that Hamilton's action against it should be dismissed since the Rehabilitation Act only prohibits discrimination in a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance and Hamilton can produce no evidence showing that, during the time of events at issue, ICR received any such assistance.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in relevant part that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The United States Supreme Court has held that this language "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an essential element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also Moore v. Mississippi Valley State Univ., 871 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir.1989); Washington v. Armstrong World Indus., 839 F.2d 1121, 1122 (5th Cir.1988).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record in the case which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. The movant need not, however, support the motion with materials that negate the opponent's claim. Id. As to issues on which the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point to portions of the record that demonstrate an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's claim. Id. at 323-324, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. The non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings and designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553.

Summary judgment can be granted only if everything in the record demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists. The district court, therefore, must not "resolve factual disputes by weighing conflicting evidence, ... since it is the province of the jury to assess the probative value of the evidence." Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887, 892 (5th Cir.1980). Summary judgment is improper where the court merely believes it unlikely that the non-moving party will prevail at trial. National Screen Serv. Corp. v. Poster Exchange, Inc., 305 F.2d 647, 651 (5th Cir.1962).

III. Discussion

A. The Rehabilitation Act

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides in pertinent part:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance....

29 U.S.C. § 794(a). As both parties correctly point out, section 504 restricts the scope of the Rehabilitation Act to a "program or activity" that receives federal financial assistance. United States Dep't of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. 597, 604, 106 S.Ct. 2705, 2710, 91 L.Ed.2d 494 (1986).¹ Thus, in order to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, Hamilton must show that ICR received federal financial assistance during the time period in which the alleged discriminatory conduct took place. See, e.g., Stephanidis v. Yale University, 652 F.Supp. 110, 113 (D.Conn.1986), aff'd, 814 F.2d 654 (2d Cir.1987) (dismissing Rehabilitation Act claim because Defendant did not receive federal grants during year in which alleged discriminatory conduct occurred).

Initially, Hamilton attempted to characterize ICR as a "recipient" within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act by alleging that ICR "received federal financial assistance, under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 ("4-R Act"), 45 U.S.C. § 803 et seq. and/or other programs." Complaint, ¶ 10. However, ICR responded in its Motion for Summary Judgment and itemization of supporting facts that at no time did it receive federal funds or assistance, either directly or indirectly, under the 4-R Act or any other program. Based on the parties' subsequent pleadings, it is apparent to the Court that Hamilton has abandoned his previous allegation that ICR received federal funds under the 4-R Act and is instead asserting that ICR received federal financial assistance through another source, specifically, the Highway Safety Act of 1973 ("Highway Safety Act"), Pub.L. No. 93-87, 87 Stat. 283 (codified as amended at 23 U.S.C. §§ 101-410 (1990 & Supp.1995)).²

As a preliminary matter, ICR argues that Hamilton failed to specifically contest the facts set forth in its itemization of material facts as required by Local Rule 8, and that this failure should result in a stipulation of those facts. While Hamilton failed to file an itemization of specifically contested facts pursuant to Local Rule 8, this failure is procedural and the Court, after reviewing Plaintiff's brief in support of his response, finds that Plaintiff does refute Defendant's contention concerning the applicability of the Rehabilitation Act. Even if this procedural failure constitutes a stipulation by Hamilton that ICR did not receive federal assistance under the 4-R Act, this does not preclude the Court from addressing the substantive issue in this case, which is whether ICR received federal assistance from some other source. Thus, for the purposes of this motion, the narrow question presented is whether, as a matter of law, ICR received federal financial assistance under the Highway Safety Act.

B. The Highway Safety Act of 1973

In an effort to improve highway safety and reduce the number of traffic accidents in the United States, Congress enacted the Highway Safety Act of 1973. Through Section 203 of the Act, Congress sought to improve highway safety at all railroad crossings by requiring:

Each state to conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways, to identify those railroad crossings which may require separation, relocation, or protective devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for this purpose.

23 U.S.C. § 130(d) (1990). States in compliance with this Congressional directive are eligible to receive federal funding which Section 203 authorizes to defray the cost of railroad improvement...