Hiebert v. Ifr Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1319-KMH.,95-1319-KMH. |
| Parties | Cheryl A. HIEBERT, Plaintiff, v. IFR SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Alan D. Herman, Klenda, Mitchell, Austerman & Zuercher, L.L.C., Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff.
Wyatt Wright, Boyd A. Byers, Foulston & Siefkin L.L.P., Wichita, KS, for Defendant.
Plaintiff has filed claims that defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD), K.S.A. § 44-1001 et seq., by its refusal to reasonably accommodate her disability and by terminating her employment. Plaintiff has also claimed that defendant retaliated against her for filing a workers' compensation claim.
This matter is presently before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #51). The parties consented to the court's exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion in its entirety as to all claims.
The following facts are uncontroverted, or where properly controverted, construed in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party. However, the court has not addressed factual allegations submitted by the parties which are not material to this ruling. Neither has the court considered the factual allegations which are not properly supported by deposition testimony, exhibits and affidavits.
IFR Systems, Inc. (IFR), a corporation involved in the manufacture and repair of electronics, hired plaintiff as an electronic technician in 1984. After two years, plaintiff advanced to the position of "electronics technician 2", a position she held until her termination on September 29, 1993. The primary function of an electronics technician is to calibrate, troubleshoot and repair electronic modules, computer boards and assemblies. The technician utilizes a broad range of electronic testing and measuring equipment and must be able to read and interpret schematics, blueprints and other technical documents. The position requires the use of assorted hand tools and soldering equipment and also requires repetitive gripping, pushing, pulling, twisting and lifting.
In early 1992, plaintiff began experiencing pain in her left elbow while working on electronic components. She ultimately filed an employee accident report complaining that the pain in her elbow had increased to the point where her fingers were numb and her ability to grip had diminished. Upon receipt of the accident report, IFR immediately took plaintiff off work pending a medical evaluation.
Subsequently, plaintiff was examined by several doctors. Nerve conduction studies showed carpal tunnel syndrome in plaintiff's left wrist and cubital tunnel syndrome of the left elbow. Dr. Pollock, plaintiff's treating physician, attributed these problems to repetitive overuse of plaintiffs left hand and arm and directed that plaintiff remain off work while she was treated with physical therapy and medication. Because her condition did not respond to this conservative treatment, Dr. Pollock surgically released the carpal tunnel in her left wrist and ulnar nerve in her left elbow.
Plaintiff was off work from March 16 until July 1, 1992. During that time, plaintiff applied for and received workers compensation benefits for temporary total disability. Plaintiff was represented by an attorney in pursuing her workers compensation claim. On the advice of her counsel, plaintiff created and kept a private, detailed journal about her injury and employment.
Dr. Pollock released plaintiff to return to work with the following restrictions: plaintiff could answer the phone and troubleshoot for one-half day, perform diagnostic testing on equipment for one-fourth day, and monitor readings for the remaining one-fourth of the day. Dr. Pollock also restricted lifting with her left arm to ten pounds and limited the left arm rotation to six times per hour.
Plaintiff's problems with her left arm continued and she also began experiencing pain in her right wrist and elbow while working. Additional nerve conduction studies were conducted on plaintiff's right wrist and, once again, the studies were positive for carpal tunnel syndrome and ulna nerve entrapment. In light of those test results and the fact that plaintiff's problems were now bilateral, Dr. Pollock modified her restrictions to "off work or no screwdriver, pliers, etc. no repetitive squeezing, pushing, lifting with hands."
IFR accepted these restrictions and allowed plaintiff to work in the customer service office answering phones and filing papers. On October 27, 1992, plaintiff filed another employee's accident report, disclosing for the first time that she had injured her back at work eight months earlier and that this back injury had recently been aggravated by stooping and bending to file papers.
On November 9, 1992, plaintiff filed a workers compensation claim for her alleged back injury and on December 21, 1992 she also filed a claim for injury to her right hand and shoulder. Plaintiff was represented again by her previous counsel on the two new workers compensation claims. Despite the medical restrictions and the filing of the new workers compensation claims, plaintiff continued to work in the customer service office.
Dr. Pollock examined plaintiff at regular monthly intervals. On Friday, April 23, 1993, he gave plaintiff a doctor's statement with the following restrictions: "no use of hand tools, no vibratory tools." Plaintiff returned to Dr. Pollock on the following Monday, April 26, and was given the additional restrictions: "Concerning her back — should avoid bending, lifting, twisting, no more than thirty-five pounds lifting and to avoid bending more than six times per hour." For purposes of this motion, the parties agree that those restrictions are permanent and that plaintiff is also restricted to "no repetitive use of hands."
Plaintiff provided those restrictions to Margo Jeffries, customer service office supervisor, and told Jeffries that filing papers aggravated her back injury, although plaintiff said she "could do it on a lesser amount." Upon receipt of plaintiff's most recent medical restrictions and her comments on the aggravation of her back injury from filing papers, IFR placed plaintiff on a medical leave of absence effective May 3, 1993.
On May 6, 1993, plaintiff, through her attorney, filed an application with the Kansas Division of Workers' Compensation asserting she was entitled to temporary total disability compensation, medical treatment and vocational rehabilitation. Following a hearing, the state administrative law judge (ALJ) ordered IFR to pay temporary total disability compensation from April 30, 1993 until such time as plaintiff was "released to any substantial or gainful employment."
Dr. Pollock referred plaintiff to Dr. Morris, a hand specialist, for a second opinion and additional treatment in May 1993. Dr. Morris noted that plaintiff was off work and permitted plaintiff to remain in that status while undergoing physical therapy. Ultimately, Dr. Morris gave plaintiff permanent restrictions to "limit repetitive activities to an occasional basis" and "minimal gripping, grasping and fine manipulations." Plaintiff provided those restrictions to IFR on August 27, 1993.
On September 30, 1993, IFR advised plaintiff that her temporary total disability benefits would terminate and that she would be terminated because there were no open positions in which she could perform the essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff's counsel immediately filed for a statutory penalty against IFR under workers compensation law, asserting that plaintiff was still temporarily totally disabled and that she "had been released with such stringent work restrictions that respondent had refused to accommodate her and she was not physically able to find gainful or substantial employment without retraining." After a hearing, the ALJ ordered IFR to continue to pay temporary total disability compensation until October 20, 1993, the scheduled date for a settlement conference on the workers compensation claims.
The settlement conference conducted on October 20, 1993 resulted in a settlement and IFR's workers compensation carrier agreed to pay a lump sum award of $30,000 to settle all claims arising out of plaintiff's injuries that were subject to her workers compensation claims. This amount was in addition to the $11,664 already paid to plaintiff for temporary total disability and $17,482 for medical expenses. The agreement was conditioned upon approval by the Division of Workers' Compensation at a hearing on November 4, 1993.
On October 21, 1993, one day after the agreement to settle her workers compensation claims, plaintiff prepared a Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) intake form with the assistance of her attorney in the present action. Plaintiff filed her administrative claim of disability discrimination on November 11, 1993, seven days after the Division of Workers' Compensation approved her settlement agreement.
On the same day that plaintiff drafted her disability discrimination complaint, she also went to the Social Security Administration office to inquire about disability benefits. In followup, a social security worker telephonically interviewed plaintiff and obtained information for a disability benefit application. The completed, unsigned application, related forms, and instructional letter were then mailed to plaintiff on November 15, 1993. Plaintiff's social security application stated in part:
I became unable to work because of my disabling condition on April 30, 1993.
I am still disabled.
. . . . .
I agree to notify the Social Security Administration if:
— my medical condition improves so that I would be able to work even though I have not...
To continue reading
Request your trial