Hilliard v. Twin Falls Couinty Sheriff's Office
| Decision Date | 15 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:18-cv-00550-CWD |
| Parties | BRENT E. HILLIARD, an individual, Plaintiff, v. TWIN FALLS COUINTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, a Public Entity, and TWIN FALLS COUNTY, a Public Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Before the Court are Plaintiff Brent E. Hilliard's motion for partial summary judgment, Defendants Twin Falls County Sheriff's Office and Twin Falls County's motion for summary judgment, and related motions to strike filed by both parties. (Dkts. 36, 43-2, 45, 48, 50.) The motions are fully briefed and at issue. The Court conducted a video hearing on December 14, 2020. After careful consideration of the record; the parties' briefing, supporting materials, and oral argument; and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The motions to strike will be denied.
This case concerns Hilliard's claims that Defendants discriminated against him and violated his due process rights by wrongfully refusing to allow him to return to work as a Twin Falls County Sheriff's Office Captain following a back surgery.
Hilliard began working at the Twin Falls County Sheriff's Office on October 21, 1996, and advanced to the rank of Captain in 2010. In mid-April 2017, Hilliard alleges he informed his supervisor, Chief Deputy Don Newman, that he was battling depression related to events witnessed over the course of his career. (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 10.) Hilliard began receiving treatment for depression while continuing to work in his position as Captain.
On May 9, 2017, Hilliard underwent back surgery and was off work for approximately one month. The parties dispute precisely when Hilliard returned to work following his surgery. (Dkt. 40-1 at ¶¶ 3, 5); (Dkt. 48-1 at ¶¶ 7-8.) Hilliard argues he returned to work on June 7, 2017. (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶ 6.) Defendants contend Hilliard attempted to return to work in "late May 2017" but was sent home until he obtained a release from his doctor. (Dkt. 45-2 at ¶ 7.) It is undisputed, however, that on June 7, 2017, Hilliard's doctor released him to return to work "with restrictions of no bending, lifting, or twisting and activity as tolerated." (Dkt. 36-2, Ex. 2.) Hilliard was placed on light duty work to accommodate his restrictions.
In June and July 2017, a number of Twin Falls County Sheriff's Office employees reported to Newman and to Twin Falls County Sheriff Tom Carter that Hilliard appeared to be impaired while at work. On June 6, 2017, Carter met with certain employees to discuss these reports. The parties dispute the purpose of the meeting. (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶ 8)(Hilliard asserts, that during the meeting, Carter told Newman and the other Captains to be on the lookout for Hilliard appearing to be under the influence on the job.); (Dkt. 40-1 at 8) (Defendants contend the meeting followed a regular weekly staff meeting and was held for the purpose of discussing reports that Hilliard appeared impaired at work.)
On June 8, 2017, Newman inquired of Hilliard about the reports that Hilliard was impaired at work. (Dkt. 45-2 at ¶ 10); (Dkt. 48-1 at ¶ 10.) Hilliard told Newman that he had taken a valium earlier that morning for muscle cramps that may have caused Hilliard to appear "groggy." (Dkt. 48-1 at ¶ 10.)
On July 10, 2017, Hilliard met with Carter and Newman who conveyed to Hilliard that other employees had expressed concerns that Hilliard was impaired while on duty. (Dkt. 40-1 at ¶ 9); (Dkt. 45-2 at ¶ 11); (Dkt. 48-1 at ¶ 11.) Hilliard informed Carter and Newman that he was taking oxycodone while off work and Tramadol in the mornings before coming to work to help with pain, as prescribed by his doctor. (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶ 4); (Dkt. 45-2 at ¶ 10); (Dkt. 48-1 at ¶¶ 10-11, 17.) Carter requested that Hilliard go home until he was no longer taking medication. (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶ 9); (Dkt. 40-1 at ¶ 9); (Dkt. 48-1 at ¶ 17.)
Approximately one week later, Hilliard alleges he notified Newman that he was "off all pain medications and ready to return to work." (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 17); (Dkt. 48-1 at ¶¶ 13, 22.) On July 20, 2017, Hilliard met with Carter, Newman, and Elaine Molignoni, the Twin Falls County Human Resources Director. At the meeting, Hilliard was placed on paid administrative leave and asked to submit to a fitness for duty evaluation. (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 18); (Dkt. 45-2 at ¶ 14); (Dkt. 48-1 at ¶¶ 13, 14.)
The fitness for duty evaluation was performed by Dr. Ronald B. Tye, Psy.D., on July 27, 2017. At the conclusion of the evaluation, Dr. Tye met with Hilliard and Newman. During that meeting, Dr. Tye indicated his initial impression was that Hilliard could return to work. (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶¶ 16, 17); (Dkt. 40-1 at ¶ 16.) Shortly thereafter, but before Dr. Tye issued his final report, Newman communicated separately with Dr. Tye. The parties dispute the content and purpose of Newman's communications with Dr. Tye. (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶ 18); (Dkt. 40-1 at ¶¶ 17, 18); (Dkt. 41-2, Dec. Newman, Ex. V.)
Hilliard alleges Newman's statements to Dr. Tye "falsely accused" Hilliard of having a history of substance abuse and improperly interfered with Dr. Tye's evaluation. (Dkt. 13 at ¶¶ 24-25); (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶¶ 18-20.) Defendants maintain Newman made no allegation of substance abuse and, instead, accurately relayed to Dr. Tye the concerns that Hilliard had been impaired in the workplace. (Dkt. 40-1 at ¶¶ 17-18.)
On August 3, 2017, Dr. Tye issued his report finding Hilliard "unfit for duty" and set forth treatment recommendations that would allow Hilliard to return to work. (Dkt. 36-2, Aff. Hilliard, Ex. 5); (Dkt. 41-2, Dec. Newman, Ex. W.) Hilliard alleges Dr. Tye changed his final assessment based on Newman's false allegations of substance abuse. (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 25); (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶ 20.) Defendants dispute that allegation. (Dkt. 40-1 at ¶¶ 17-18.) Regardless, Hilliard began following Dr. Tye's treatment recommendations.
On August 17, 2017, Hilliard attended another meeting with Carter, Newman, and Molignoni. During the meeting, Hilliard was given a letter, dated August 9, 2017, stating his paid administrative leave was ending and that he was not authorized to return to work at that time. It also notified Hilliard of his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act(FMLA) to pursue treatment as suggested by Dr. Tye and complete another fitness for duty evaluation. (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 30); (Dkt. 36-2, Aff. Hilliard, Ex. 4); (Dkt. 45-2 at ¶ 27.)
Hilliard argues he substantially complied with Dr. Tye's treatment recommendations by attending sessions with treatment providers and obtaining a Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) evaluation. (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 27-32); (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶¶ 22-24); (Dkt. 36-2, Aff. Hilliard, Ex. 9.) A second fitness for duty evaluation was scheduled for August 28, 2017.
On August 27, 2017, Hilliard contends Carter telephoned him and informed Hilliard that if he passed the final fitness for duty evaluation, Hilliard "would still have a job," but if Hilliard was found unfit for duty, "he could no longer be employed" with the Twin Falls County Sheriff's Office. (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 33); (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶ 24.) The following day, Hilliard participated in the second fitness for duty evaluation. At the conclusion of the evaluation, Hilliard alleges Dr. Tye again indicated he was "leaning" towards finding Hilliard fit for duty. (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 34.)
Dr. Tye's final report dated September 7, 2017, however, made no determination regarding Hilliard's fitness for duty. (Dkt. 36-4 at ¶ 27); (Dkt. 41-2, Dec. Newman, Ex. Y.) Dr. Tye's final report assessed Hilliard's progress with the recommendations made in the August 3, 2017 fitness for duty evaluation, concluding: "[w]ithout complete disclosure, obviously a suspected substance abuse problem cannot be fully resolved or treated." (Dkt. 41-2, Dec. Newman, Ex. Y.)
Newman notified Hilliard by text that Dr. Tye's report had been received and was being sent to the Twin Falls County legal department. (Dkt. 13 at ¶ 42); (Dkt. 36-4 at¶ 28.) Hilliard interpreted the text to mean his employment with the Twin Falls County Sheriff's Office would be terminated.
The day after receiving Newman's text, Hilliard consumed alcohol, drove to a remote location, and contemplated suicide. Hilliard reconsidered his actions and began driving home when he was arrested for driving under the influence. (Dkt. 13 at ¶¶ 41-42.) Hilliard was terminated from his employment on September 28, 2017 as a result of the arrest. Hilliard's appeal of his termination was denied on October 6, 2017.
On October 30, 2017, Hilliard filed a Notice of Tort Claim and a Complaint with both the Idaho Human Rights Commission and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hilliard received his Notice of Right to Sue on December 5, 2018, and initiated this action on December 11, 2018. (Dkt. 1.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which was granted in part and denied in part on June 20, 2019. (Dkt. 12.)1
On July 10, 2019, Hilliard filed an Amended Complaint asserting six causes of action: 1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq.; 2) violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2615 et seq.; 3) violation of Due Process, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 4) violation of the Idaho Human Rights Act(IHRA), Idaho Code § 67-5909, et seq.; 5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and 6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. 13.)
Hilliard filed a motion for partial summary judgment on June 24, 2020, seeking summary judgment regarding Defendants' "liability for violation of Hilliard's constitutional rights and discrimination that occurred prior to September 7, 2017." (Dkt. 36.) On August 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Hilliard's claims. (Dkt. 45.) Both parties filed related motions to strike. (Dkts. 43-2, 48,...
To continue reading
Request your trial