Hartman v. Graham Packaging Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-488 |
| Parties | RAYMOND HARTMANN, Plaintiff, v. GRAHAM PACKAGING COMPANY, L.P., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
RAYMOND HARTMANN, Plaintiff,
v.
GRAHAM PACKAGING COMPANY, L.P., Defendant.
No. 1:19-cv-488
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
January 25, 2022
OPINION AND ORDER
DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Raymond Hartmann (“Hartmann”) takes prescription opioids for persistent pain. When he applied for a position at Defendant Graham Packaging Company, L.P. (“Graham”) that required him to operate a forklift, Graham asked Hartmann to provide a physician's note confirming that his medications would not create safety concerns when he performed that job function. Hartmann provided three notes from his physician, but Graham found each wanting on that key issue. Graham declined to offer Hartmann the position, purportedly based on safety concerns. Hartmann then sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), contending that Graham discriminated against him due to a disability, or at least based on Graham's perception that he was disabled.
The case is now before the Court on the parties' cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Def.'s Mot., Doc. 25; Pl.'s Mot., Doc. 26[1]). Both matters have been fully briefed, and the Court heard argument on those Motions on November 5, 2021.
For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court DENIES both Graham's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) and Hartmann's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 26).
BACKGROUND
Hartmann was an unemployed machine and forklift operator. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts, Doc. 29-1, #484[2]). Sometime in October 2017, William Russell, a Production Manager at Graham, contacted Hartmann. Russell had seen Hartmann's resume on a job recruiter site. (Id. at #485). On October 20, 2017, Hartmann and Russell met at Graham's Mason, Ohio, facility to discuss an available position as a Production Specialist, a job which entailed operating forklifts and other machinery. (Id.; Opp. to Pl.'s Mot., Doc. 29, #475; Hartmann Dep., Doc. 21, #92-93). During this meeting, Hartmann filled out a job application and Russell gave him a tour of the facility. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts, Doc. 29-1, #485). Russell told Hartmann he wanted him to start working in November, assuming Hartmann passed a physical and drug test. (Id.).
During this meeting, Hartmann also provided Russell a letter from his doctor, Rajesh Khanna. The letter, dated July 21, 2017, discussed certain narcotics that Dr. Khanna had prescribed Hartmann to treat a pinched nerve. (Id.; Hartmann Dep., Doc. 21, #95-96). As pertinent here, the letter provided that:
Mr. Hartmann has been receiving treatment for numerous medical problems through my office. He is presently on a treatment regimen which includes tizanidine/Cymbalta/Seroquel/diazepam/oxycodone to address these issues. He has not had any difficulties with this medical treatment. He denies any impairment/difficulties encountered when these medications are taken. No concerns [have] been raised over his ability to perform his occupation/employment duties while on these medications
(July 21 Khanna Ltr., Doc. 21-6, #172).
On October 24, 2017, Graham offered Hartmann a job, conditioned upon (among other things) Hartmann completing a pre-employment physical and drug screening. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts, Doc 29-1, #486). Hartmann accepted the offer and submitted to his pre-employment physical and drug test at a Mercy Health (“Mercy”) facility on October 31, 2017. (Id.).
Heather Younker, Graham's Plant Controller at the Mason, Ohio, facility, received the results of the physical and drug test on November 10, 2017. (Id. at #486-87). The results of the drug test were “negative, ” but the words “safety sensitive” were handwritten on the side of the report. (Id.). Younker had never seen a drug test result indicating an applicant was “safety-sensitive, ” so she contacted Mercy to learn more. (Younker Dep., Doc. 22, #198). A Mercy employee explained that the results were marked as safety sensitive due to Hartmann's medications. (Younker Statement, Doc. 22-5, #256). Younker testifies that she also asked the Mercy employee whether other
employers would hire applicants who Mercy had designated as safety sensitive. The employee responded that other employers would not, but told her that she “would need to see what Graham's policy was on that.” (Younker Dep., Doc. 22, #202).
Younker then contacted Larry Silvey, Graham's Regional Director of Human Resources, to discuss Hartmann's test results. Following that call, Younker informed Hartmann that Graham would need a new letter from Dr. Khanna. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts, Doc. 29-1, #488).
The record becomes somewhat muddled as to exactly what transpired next. It is clear, however, that Hartmann began communicating with Dr. Khanna's office, and that Dr. Khanna's office then issued two new letters. One letter, dated November 27, 2017, explained that Hartmann had been prescribed Adderall to treat Attention Deficit Disorder. (Nov. 27 Khanna Ltr., Doc. 21-5, #171). Another letter, dated November 21, 2017, detailed Hartmann's narcotics regimen. (Nov. 21 Khanna Ltr., Doc. 21-7, #173). But, as to the November 21 letter, apart from the new date (i.e., November 21), the substance of this letter mirrored the contents of the July 21 letter that Hartmann had provided Russell during his initial interview. (Compare Nov. 21 Khanna Ltr., Doc. 21-7, #173 with July 21 Khanna Ltr., Doc. 21-6, #172).
Moreover, although the November 27 “Adderall” letter is dated after the November 21 “narcotics” letter, the parties agreed during oral argument that the Adderall letter was, in fact, delivered to Younker first. The parties further agree that, after Younker received the November 27 “Adderall” letter, she informed Hartmann that Graham was not concerned about his Adderall prescription. (Younker Dep., Doc.
22, #229). Rather, she told Hartmann that Graham needed a letter addressing Hartmann's narcotics regimen. (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts, Doc. 28-1, #462, ¶ 35 (admitting to Def.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts, Doc. 25-1, #432, ¶ 35)).
But, while the parties agree that Graham wanted a letter from Hartmann's physician addressing that regimen, the parties do not necessarily agree regarding what the specific contents of that letter were to be. Both Hartmann and Younker indicated during their depositions that this new letter was meant to remedy a perceived defect in the original July 21 letter. But Hartmann and Younker describe the perceived defect a little differently. In his deposition, Hartmann stated that Graham asked for a “letter that was more specific, and, you know, up to date as well.” (Hartmann Dep., Doc. 21, #119 (emphasis added)).[3] But during her deposition, Younker did not mention anything about asking for a letter that was “more specific.” Rather she stated only that “I would have said that I needed a more recent note because [the original letter] was a July date. We're in November-December, and I needed a recent release.” (Younker Dep., Doc. 22, #230-31).[4]
In any event, Dr. Khanna's office issued the new November 21 letter once again detailing Hartmann's narcotics regimen. However, as the Court previously noted, this November 21 letter was otherwise identical to the original July 21 letter. (Compare Nov. 21 Khanna Ltr., Doc. 21-7, #173 with July 21 Khanna Ltr., Doc. 21-6, #172). Younker received the November 21 letter no later than December 4, 2017. (Younker Dep., Doc. 22, #212).
That day, Younker emailed the new letter to Larry Silvey and asked if Graham could proceed with hiring Hartmann. (Email from H. Younker to L. Silvey, Doc. 224, #255). Silvey responded later that same day, noting that the hiring could proceed, but at the same time urging some caution:
[y]es, but some of these are very powerful medications. Oxycodone is for serious pain symptoms. Personally I would be reluctant to put this person in my workforce. I would definitely have a discussion around the physical requirements of the position, the hours, etc. Ray must report when on any of these medications to his supervisor.
(Id.).
Over the new few days, Younker discussed Hartmann's application with William Russell and Kathy Whitney, a plant manager at Graham. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts, Doc. 29-1, #490). The three then called Silvey to discuss the issue further. Silvey advised them not to hire Hartmann because his medication presented a safety concern. (Id.). On December 18, 2017, Hartmann went to Graham to discuss his application. (Id.). When he arrived, Younker informed him
that Graham could not hire him as a forklift operator because it concluded he was a “safety hazard.” (Id.).
Hartmann sued on July 1, 2019, (see Compl., Doc. 1), asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Ohio's parallel anti-discrimination statute, Ohio Rev. Code (“O.R.C.”) § 4112.02. (Id.). Graham filed its Answer (Doc. 3) on August 30, 2019. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on March 1, 2021. (Doc. 25; Doc. 26).
LEGAL STANDARD
In evaluating the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court keeps in mind that “[t]he ‘party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions' of the record which demonstrate ‘the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'” See, e.g., Rudolph v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 2:18-cv-1743, 2020 WL 4530600, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 6, 2020) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). But the non-moving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely by pointing to any factual dispute. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, “[t]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an...
To continue reading
Request your trial