Hart v. Comcast of Houston, LLC, 101509 FED5, 09-20238
|Opinion Judge:||KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judge|
|Party Name:||KEVIN HART, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMCAST OF HOUSTON, LLC, A Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 15, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-08-1379
Kevin Hart appeals the district court's summary judgment on his claims for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C. §2612)("FMLA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12112(a))("ADA") and wrongful termination (under Texas common law). For essentially the same reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM.
Hart was employed by Comcast as a sales representative in February of 2006. Comcast contends that this employment lasted only two weeks1 and that he was then rehired three months later as a home cable installer and repair technician. This new job required him to enter attics and crawl spaces in customers' homes. A little less than a year after he began this new position, Hart went home sick. He spent the next three months on a medical leave of absence, seeing various doctors. On July 31, 2007, Hart requested an alternate duty assignment. However, four days later, he advised Comcast that he was released to return to work with no restrictions. Upon request for a medical release documenting his status, he provided a release signed by a doctor dated August 13, 2007, releasing him to return to work "ASAP" with no restrictions. A few days later he provided a release from another doctor also releasing him to return to work but stating that he could work eight hours a day for five days a week and should "wear a mask."
Hart returned to work on August 29, 2007, but he went to the hospital complaining of a sore throat a few days later. He was treated and released, but he never returned to Comcast. Ten days after the hospital visit, Hart contacted Comcast and stated that he would need a mask. He was told to pick out a mask, and Comcast would buy it for him. That same day, he was told that he needed either to return to work or provide medical verification of his inability to return to work. He did neither and was terminated.2 Hart then brought this action for alleged violations of the FMLA and ADA and for wrongful termination. The district court granted summary judgment on the entire case.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Summary judgment is...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP