Leonard v. Electro-Mechanical Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 April 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:13CV00029.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: Harold E. LEONARD, Plaintiff, v. ELECTRO–MECHANICAL CORPORATION, Defendant.

36 F.Supp.3d 679

29 A.D. Cases 1241

Harold E. LEONARD, Plaintiff

v.ELECTRO–MECHANICAL CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13CV00029.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division.

Signed April 9, 2014.

Hilary K. Johnson, Hilary K. Johnson, PC, Abingdon, VA, for Plaintiff.

Elizabeth Hope Cothran, Patice L. Holland, Victor O'Neil Cardwell, Woods Rogers PLC, Roanoke, VA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GLEN E. CONRAD, Chief Judge.

In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff claims that the defendant violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 –12117, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 –2654. The case is presently before the court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.

Factual Background

The following facts are presented in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (noting that all evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment).

From April 8, 2002 until July 12, 2012, Harold E. Leonard was employed as a janitor for Electro–Mechanical Corporation (Electro), a manufacturing company headquartered in Bristol, Virginia. Leonard's primary duties included emptying trash cans, picking up trash in the company parking lot, cleaning up broken glass, sweeping the sidewalks, vacuuming the entryway, and stripping and waxing the floors.

Leonard suffers from degenerative disc disease

. During his period of employment with Electro, this condition periodically resulted in pain “flare-ups,” which varied in severity. Leonard Dep. at 90, 132–33. When Leonard experienced “little flare-up[s],” which caused his hip and leg to “hurt real [ly] bad,” he would sit down for up to five minutes to reduce the pressure. Id. at 132–33. When he experienced flare-ups that resulted in more severe pain, he would take FMLA leave and undergo epidural steroid injections. Id. at 90, 132.

On or about March 29, 2012, Leonard told his supervisor, Brian Harris, that his wife was having a surgical procedure performed on April 2, 2012, and that he needed to take leave to go with her. Leonard subsequently learned that his wife's surgery would not be performed until April 3, 2012. Consequently, he went to work on April 2, 2012, rather than taking leave that day. After working a few hours, Leonard “got [a] catch in [his] back and pain started going down [his] leg.” Id. at 220. Upon seeing Leonard in pain, Harris advised him to “go on home.” Id.

Leonard remained off work from April 3, 2012 until April 6, 2012. During that time, Leonard did not call in to advise Electro that he would be absent. Upon returning to work on April 9, 2012, Leonard presented the company with two return-to-work certificates from his treating physician, Dr. Shannon Finch, who had given him an epidural steroid injection for pain. Id. at 109. The certificates requested that Leonard be excused from work the previous week.

On April 10, 2012, Sherie Huggins, Electro's Human Resources Manager, and Mike Stollings, another Human Resources representative, met with Leonard regarding his absences and his failure to call in as required by the company's attendance policy. Stollings explained the attendance policy to Leonard, and told him that he had no choice but to issue a one-day suspension. Leonard “accept[ed]” the action, recognizing that “it was [his] fault” for not calling in to report his absences. Id. at 117.

During the April 10, 2012 meeting, Leonard received a written job description for Dr. Finch to review and sign. Dr. Finch faxed the signed form to Electro on April 12, 2012. By signing the form, Dr. Finch confirmed that he had read the description of Leonard's janitorial responsibilities and was of the opinion that Leonard was “fit for duty with no restrictions.” Leonard Dep. Ex. 9 at 2. Upon obtaining the form, Electro allowed Leonard to return to work. Leonard proceeded to work without interruption until June 7, 2012.

Less than six weeks after Dr. Finch faxed the signed job description to Electro, he sent the company a Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition (FMLA) form, which he completed on May 21, 2012 after examining Leonard. Dr. Finch reported that he had treated Leonard for degenerative disc disease

on several occasions including that date, and that Leonard “cannot perform any job [functions] when [the] condition flares.” Leonard Dep. Ex. 10 at 2. Dr. Finch noted that the condition causes flare-ups that would periodically prevent Leonard from performing his job, and that it would be necessary for Leonard to be absent from work during the flare-ups. Id. at 3. When asked to estimate the frequency of the flare-ups that Leonard may have over the next six months, Dr. Finch indicated that he may have one to two episodes per month that last three to five days per episode. Id.

On the morning of June 6, 2012, Leonard approached Todd Dewar, Electro's General Manager, at the suggestion of another employee, and advised Dewar of his back impairment and the fact that he occasionally needed to sit and rest. During his deposition, Leonard provided the following summary of the conversation:

... Todd was coming through and I was dumping trash. And I ... asked Todd about his back.

I said, “I heard you had back trouble.”

He said, “I had a cyst taken off of my back when I was younger.” I told him that I had back trouble too, degenerative disc disease

.

And I sa[id], “Occasionally I have a flare-up. Whenever I do, I have to sit down for just a minute or two, maybe five minutes, and I get up and I'm fine. Go back to work.”

And that was all that was said.

Leonard Dep. at 135.

On the afternoon of June 6, 2012, Dewar sent an email to Huggins and Stollings regarding his conversation with Leonard. The email stated as follows:

This morning Harold pulled me aside and asked about my previous back issues—referring to my spine surgery some 20 years ago. Harold relayed that he was having back issues of his own—more specifically that he had “degenerating” disks and bones in his lower back. He stated that this was causing him pain when he lifted the trash cans to empty them. He then said that this pain would cause him to sit and rest for 5 to 10 minutes after which he would feel better and could continue his work. Finally he noted this was a constant issue he was dealing with and I may see him frequently “resting.”

At this point, I have concerns with him being on the floor and his ability to do the job in the shop—for his safety and well being as well as that of others. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this discussion.

Leonard Dep. Ex. 11.

Following his conversation with Dewar, Leonard found three metal ball bearings in the bottom of one of the trash cans that he was responsible for dumping. Leonard Dep. at 160–61. He showed the bearings to another employee, Alfred Duty, who estimated that they weighed approximately ten to twenty pounds. Duty Decl. at ¶ 9.

On June 7, 2012, Huggins and Harris met with Leonard regarding the medical issues he reported to Dewar. Leonard Dep. at 144–45. They advised Leonard that Electro had scheduled an independent medical examination (IME) with an orthopedist on June 29, 2012, and that he could not return to work until after the examination had been conducted.

In a letter dated June 8, 2012, Huggins advised Leonard that Electro would be handling his absence under the company's FMLA policy, that his FMLA leave would commence on June 13, 2012, and that he had four weeks of FMLA leave remaining. Leonard Dep. Ex. 9. During his deposition, Leonard testified that he did not recall receiving this letter. Leonard Dep. at 147.

On June 11, 2012, Leonard met with Huggins and requested further explanation as to why he had been taken out of work. They discussed their previous meeting with Harris, but Huggins declined “to write down what [they] talked about.” Id. at 149. She provided Leonard with FMLA and/or short term disability paperwork for Dr. Finch to complete. Leonard subsequently reported that Dr. Finch would not complete the paperwork because Leonard had been “released to go back to work.” Id. at 149–50.

Prior to the IME appointment on June 29, 2012, Huggins called Leonard and left him messages reminding him about the appointment. Leonard did not respond to the messages, appear for the appointment, or return to work. His FMLA leave expired on July 10, 2012. Huggins Dep. at 38.

On July 12, 2012, Huggins issued a letter terminating Leonard's employment with Electro. The letter included the following explanation:

This letter is to advise you that your employment with Electro–Mechanical Corporation is terminated effective July 12, 2012. This is the result of your failure to keep in contact with Electro–Mechanical Corporation, keep us updated on your medical condition, keep your scheduled appointment for the independent medical examination, and to return the messages I have left for you. Your FMLA has now expired.

Leonard Dep. Ex. 13. Prior to the issuance of the letter, Leonard retained counsel and applied for unemployment benefits.

Procedural History

On or about August 3, 2012, Leonard filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Electro discriminated against him in violation of the ADA. Thereafter, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter. Although the letter indicates that it was mailed to Leonard's attorney on December 10, 2012, the envelope containing the letter was not postmarked until December 27, 2012.

On March 28, 2013, Leonard filed the instant action claiming that Electro violated his rights under the ADA and the FMLA. Following the completion of discovery, Electro moved for summary judgment. The court held a hearing on the motion on March 7, 2014. The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe...