Neal v. Indianapolis Fire Dep't

• Decision Date: 10 June 2022
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-02921-TWP-MG
• Parties: SANJIV NEAL, Plaintiff, v. INDIANAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT, and CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

SANJIV NEAL, Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT, and CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-02921-TWP-MG

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

June 10, 2022

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HON. TANYA WALTON PRATT, CHIEF JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants the Indianapolis Fire Department (the "IFD") and the City of Indianapolis (Indiana) (the "City") (collectively, "Defendants") (Filing No. 66). Following his termination from the IFD, Plaintiff Sanjiv Neal ("Neal") initiated this action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), and asserting a hostile work environment claim and several state law tort claims. For the following reasons, the Defendants' Motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Admissibility of Evidence

As an initial matter, the Court will address the admissibility of the parties' evidence. "Admissibility is a threshold question because a court may consider only admissible evidence in assessing a motion for summary judgment." Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir. 2009); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Both Neal and the Defendants have submitted exhibits without authenticating them as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Unauthenticated evidence is inadmissible and may not be considered in evaluating a motion for summary judgment.

1

See Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 759 (7th Cir. 2003) (concluding report introduced without authenticating affidavit was inadmissible and could not be considered on summary judgment); see, e.g., Schmutte v. Resort Condos. Int'l, L.L.C., No. 05-CV-311, 2006 WL 3462656, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 29, 2006) (citing United States v. Kelly, 14 F.3d 1169, 1175 (7th Cir. 1994)); Bennett v. Gates, No. No. 09-cv-00647, 2010 WL 4668367, at *3-4 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2010) (disregarding unauthenticated evidence on summary judgment).

Defendants did not authenticate fifteen of their exhibits: Neal's injury report (Filing No. 68-4); his Worker's Compensation Patient Status Report (Filing No. 68-5); four Fit-for-Duty Evaluations (Filing No. 68-13; Filing No. 68-14; Filing No. 68-15; Filing No. 68-16); Neal's IFD discipline records (Filing No. 68-17); his IFD pre-employment packet (Filing No. 68-18); the IFD's Private job description (Filing No. 68-19)^[1]; a letter to the IFD dated November 5, 2019 (Filing No. 68-21); four letters from the IFD to Neal prior to his termination (Filing No. 68-22; Filing No. 68 23; Filing No. 68-24; Filing No. 68-25); and the Civilian Merit Board Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Filing No. 68-26). These unauthenticated exhibits are inadmissible.

Neal filed only one exhibit-an "Expert Witness Questionaire [sic]" from Dr. Darren L. Higginbotham ("Dr. Higginbotham") (Filing No. 69 at 23-29), which is likewise unauthenticated and inadmissible. Scott, 346 F.3d at 759 ("[The expert] report was introduced into the record without any supporting affidavit verifying its authenticity and is therefore inadmissible and cannot

2

be considered for purposes of summary judgment."); see Est. of Williams v. Ind. State Police, 26 F.Supp.3d 824, 838 (S.D. Ind. 2014) (disregarding unauthenticated expert report and rejecting belated attempt to cure authenticity defect on surreply) (citing Scott, 346 F.3d at 759). Neal also frequently cites allegations of his unverified Amended Complaint in responding to Defendants' Motion, but those allegations are not admissible evidence and will not be considered in resolving Defendants' Motion. James v. Hale, 959 F.3d 307, 314 (7th Cir. 2020) (restating "the general principle that a plaintiff may not rely on mere allegations or denials in his complaint when opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment"); see S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(e) ("A party must support each fact the party asserts in a brief with a citation to a discovery response, a deposition, an affidavit, or other admissible evidence.").

B. Factual Background

The following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the facts are presented in the light most favorable to Neal as the non-moving party. See Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

Neal's Employment and the IFD's Policies

Neal joined the IFD on May 13, 2013, as a firefighter with a ranking of Private (Filing No. 68-3 at 12, 14; Filing No. 68-27 at 1, ¶ 6). The IFD issued him an IFD email address when he was hired (Filing No. 68-3 at 16-17). While on full duty, Neal was scheduled to work a twenty-four hour shift every three days (Filing No. 68-3 at 16).

Throughout Neal's employment, the IFD maintained General Orders ("General Orders") with which firefighters were required to comply (Filing No. 68-28 at 2-3, ¶¶ 6-7, 9). Violations of the General Orders could result in discipline, including suspension and termination (id. at 2, ¶ 8). Defendants identified seven of those General Orders in support of their Motion.

3

General Order 1.07 (Filing No. 68-6) requires IFD firefighters to notify the IFD of any changes to their name, address, telephone number, or driver's license status within seventy-two hours of the change. General Order 1.34 (Filing No. 68-7) requires firefighters to check their email each day while on duty and each week if off duty "for an extended period."

General Order 2.08 (Filing No. 68-8) governs attendance. It requires firefighters to report at 8:00 a.m. each scheduled day of duty and requires IFD officers to take rollcall at 8:00 a.m. every day "to ensure firefighters under their command are present and prepared to begin the duty day." (Id. § II(E)(i).) It requires firefighters on duty to "be at their assigned duty station at all times except . . . [w]hen detailed elsewhere by a superior officer" or "[w]hen dispatched elsewhere by Fire Communications". (Id. § II(D).) General Order 2.08 provides that firefighters who will be late or absent for duty must notify a superior officer before their shift or period of absence and that "[f]irefighters absent from their assigned station without being excused by a superior officer shall be considered absent without leave and subject to disciplinary action". (Id. §§ II(B)-(C).) General Order 2.18 (Filing No. 68-9) describes assignments to "limited duty," which are made when a firefighter is "unable to perform [his] regular job duties due to sickness, accident, and/or injury, or temporary disability but [is able to] perform limited duties within the IFD." (Id. § II.)

General Order 6.09 (Filing No. 68-10) provides that "an individual's mental, emotional, and/or physical fitness to perform the duties of a firefighter" is determined through a Fitness for Duty evaluation ("Fitness for Duty Evaluation"), which "may include physical and/or psychological exams administered by Department[-]approved accredited medical professionals." (Id.) General Order 6.09 requires firefighters to "report as ordered to [an] approved medical professional [and] participate in the components of the Fitness for Duty Evaluation." (Id. § III(D).)

4

It further provides that "[f]ailure to report as ordered or failure to participate in the Fitness for Duty testing procedures may result in progressive discipline." (Id.)

General Orders 8.01 and 8.03 (Filing No. 68-11; Filing No. 68-12) describe the procedures by which IFD officers may use progressive discipline and the IFD's procedures for reviewing and holding hearings on disciplinary matters.

Neal's Disability, Discipline, and Termination

During his employment with IFD, Neal suffered from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") (Filing No. 68-3 at 22). These conditions either originated or began deepening when he first joined the IFD and attended the IFD's training academy in 2013. (Id. at 17.) At the academy, he was bullied and ostracized by other trainees and his superiors. (Id. at 39-40, 44-46.) This abuse continued even after he completed the academy. (Id.)

On August 2, 2018, Neal was physically injured during a training exercise (Filing No. 68 3 at 18). As a result, he could not immediately return to work (Filing No. 68-3 at 18-19). On January 22, 2019, Neal attended a Fitness for Duty Evaluation (Filing No. 68-27 at 2, ¶ 8-9). The IFD's physician made inflammatory comments during the evaluation, so Neal left the evaluation early (Filing No. 68-3 at 40). Neal notified IFD Deputy Chief of Administration Timothy Robinson ("Chief Robinson") that he had ended the evaluation early. (Id. at 40-41.) Chief Robinson suspended Neal for twenty-four hours for failing to complete the Fitness for Duty Evaluation. (Filing No. 68-27 at 2, ¶ 9.)

Neal was deemed unfit to return to full duty due to both his physical injuries and his psychological conditions, so Neal was placed on limited duty (Filing No. 68-3 at 20, 33). He began his limited duty on June 17, 2019 (Filing No. 68-27 at 2, ¶ 12). The IFD sent Neal a letter describing his limited duty, (Filing No. 68-27 at 2, ¶ 13; Filing No. 68-20), which stated that employees on limited duty are scheduled to work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through

5

Friday, and that a failure to report at assigned locations would result in the employee being considered absent without leave (Filing No. 68-20).

Neal experienced difficulties with his anxiety, depression, and PTSD while on limited duty (Filing No. 68-3 at 20). Yet he never requested any type of accommodation during his employment with the IFD (Filing No. 68-27 at 4, ¶ 30; Filing No. 68-3 at 32-33). Neal does not recall when, but he took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") on one occasion to assist his ailing mother (Filing No. 68-3 at 35).

Neal's depression caused...