Paris v. Arc/Davidson County, Inc., No. 1:02CV01012.

Decision Date25 February 2004
Docket NumberNo. 1:02CV01012.
Citation307 F.Supp.2d 743
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
PartiesDonna PARIS, Plaintiff, v. The ARC/DAVIDSON COUNTY, INC. and The Arc of Davidson County, Defendants.

Tamara W. Brooks, Widis & Brooks, PLLC, Charlotte, NC, for plaintiff.

David William Sar, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, Greensboro, NC, Ruth W. Woodling, Jennifer Bussey Sandberg, Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, GA, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BULLOCK, District Judge.

On November 22, 2002, Donna Paris ("Plaintiff") filed this employment discrimination action against The ARC/Davidson County, Inc., and The ARC of Davidson County (collectively "ARC"). Plaintiff's complaint appears to allege four bases for relief in two separate counts: (1) hostile work environment and discriminatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"); and (2) failure to accommodate a disability and discriminatory discharge in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). Before the court is ARC's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, the parties' briefs, and the other materials in the record. For the following reasons, ARC's motion for summary judgment will be granted.1

FACTS

Formerly known as the Association for Retarded Citizens, ARC is a non-profit organization affiliated with the ARC of North Carolina, as well as the National ARC. ARC is governed locally by a volunteer Board of Directors ("the Board"), which has final authority with regard to all ARC policy initiatives, personnel matters, and budgetary decisions. ARC provides a variety of services and outreach programs for developmentally disabled adults through funding provided by Medicare and Medicaid, the North Carolina Division of Mental Health, the Davidson County Special Assistance Programs, and the United Way. As part of its residential services program, ARC operates four licensed supervised living facilities to provide its developmentally disabled clients with assistance and training in all areas of independent living. ARC also provides some of its developmentally disabled clients with transportation in order to accommodate their medical and personal needs.

ARC is dependent upon the Davidson County Area Mental Health Association ("Davidson County") for a portion of its funding. Pursuant to the terms of its contract with Davidson County, ARC is required to employ a Qualified Developmental Disabilities Professional ("QDDP") within its residential services program. The QDDP is primarily responsible for managing client-specific "service plans" or "individualized treatment plans," which set independent living goals for ARC's developmentally disabled clients. Prior to 1996, the Board had hired an independent contractor to perform QDDP services for ARC; however, the Board hired Plaintiff during the fall of 1996 to serve as ARC's full-time habilitation coordinator for residential services ("habilitation coordinator").2

Plaintiff is a thirty-six-year-old white female who has worked with developmentally disabled adults since her graduation from college in 1989. Following a work-related automobile accident in 1991, physicians diagnosed Plaintiff with spondylolisthesis,3 "a condition that affects her back and causes constant lower back and leg pain." (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff contends that spondylolisthesis qualifies as a disability and that "one accommodation required by [Plaintiff] and her disability is a sedentary job." (Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Defs.' Mem. and Mot. Summ. J. at 2.)

When Plaintiff applied for employment with ARC, she met with LaRue Kennedy, ARC's residential program director, for an initial interview. During their interview, Kennedy provided Plaintiff with a description of the habilitation coordinator position and questioned Plaintiff about her background and experience. Plaintiff contends that she candidly discussed her back condition with Kennedy and specifically asked Kennedy "whether or not ... direct physical contact with clients, would be involved." (Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Defs.' Mem. and Mot. Summ. J., Tab I; Pl.'s Dep. at 45.) According to Plaintiff, Kennedy responded that "this particular job ... would not be hands-on." (Id.)

Following her initial interview with Kennedy, Plaintiff participated in two follow-up interviews with the Board and the Board's personnel committee. During both follow-up interviews, Plaintiff answered the Board's questions about her education and job experience; however, Plaintiff never mentioned during either interview that physicians had diagnosed her with spondylolisthesis in 1991 or that she considered herself disabled. Instead, Plaintiff provided ARC with a signed medical statement from her physician, dated September 12, 1996, that certified "[Plaintiff] is able to carry out duties that may be required in working with persons with developmental disabilities including bending, kneeling or lifting." (Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D.)

When Plaintiff began her employment with ARC in September 1996, she worked under the direct supervision of Kennedy. Plaintiff's position as habilitation coordinator generally involved administrative development and implementation of support services for clients living in ARC's supervised living facilities. (Defs.' Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D.) Specifically, Plaintiff's duties as habilitation coordinator included monitoring clients' medical needs, developing new treatment plans for clients, assisting clients with their grievances and concerns, providing clients with transportation as needed, and data management. (Id.)

In 1998, the Board hired Vera McRae, an African-American female, as ARC's full-time executive director. Also in 1998, the Board named Plaintiff as ARC's assistant residential program director. As ARC's assistant residential program director, Plaintiff continued to provide QDDP services for ARC under the direct supervision of Kennedy and assisted Kennedy with the management of operations at ARC's supervised living facilities. (Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Defs.' Mem. and Mot. Summ. J., Tab I; Pl.'s Dep. at 64). Specifically, Plaintiff's responsibilities as assistant residential program director included managing client treatment plans, delivering services to ARC clients, counseling and crisis intervention, monitoring clients' medication and medical appointments, and developing policies and procedures to comply with various state and local rules and regulations. (Id. at 65.)

According to Plaintiff, she experienced no difficulty performing her job at ARC from September 1996 until October 2001 because she worked "in an administrative capacity making leadership decisions and delegating duties." (Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Defs.' Mem. and Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D.) Plaintiff contends that during her first five years at ARC, "[she] received excellent reviews, salary increases, and bonuses as a reflection." (Id.) During her first five years at ARC, Plaintiff also provided ARC with two more signed medical statements from her physicians, dated October 26, 1999, and February 12, 2001, that certified "[Plaintiff] is able to carry out duties that may be required in working with persons with developmental disabilities including bending, kneeling or lifting." (Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D.)

In July and August 2001, the Board met to discuss ARC's financial situation after several members of the Board and ARC's accountant expressed concerns regarding ARC's financial situation. During both meetings, the Board agreed to make budget cuts in order to stabilize ARC's financial situation. For example, the Board declined to fill two vacant managerial positions within ARC's supervised living facilities and relied on other ARC employees to perform extra work created by the vacancies.

In either late September or early October 2001, the Board reorganized ARC's internal structure so that ARC's administrative unit could share funds with ARC's residential services program. As a result, the Board gave McRae supervisory responsibility over ARC's residential services staff, in addition to her administrative duties as ARC's executive director, and eliminated Plaintiff's position as ARC's assistant residential program director. Thereafter, Plaintiff continued her duties as habilitation coordinator under the direct supervision of Kennedy and McRae. According to Plaintiff's complaint, McRae stated on several occasions that ARC "did not employ enough black people." (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff contends that her position as ARC's habilitation coordinator became more physically demanding and active during October 2001 because of several unexpected changes in her job duties, which included reporting to one of five job locations, driving different vehicles, assisting clients into and out of vans and in and out of their medical appointments, dressing and undressing clients, bathing and wiping clients, cooking lunch for clients and cleaning up the kitchen, and doing laundry when clients had personal care accidents. (Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Defs.' Mem. and Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D.) Plaintiff also contends that the physical strain of her new job duties adversely affected her back condition because "[she] seldom had opportunities to sit at [her] leisure" and because her job involved "constant repetitive type movements" such as driving, lifting, pushing, pulling, and bending. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, she affirmatively requested an accommodation from ARC within a few weeks of performing her new job duties and spoke to Kennedy "almost on a daily basis about it." (Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Defs.' Mem. and Mot. Summ. J., Tab I; Pl.'s Dep. at 193.)

On November 2, 2001, Plaintiff met with Kennedy to discuss Plaintiff's job duties and new responsibilities as ARC's habilitation coordinator. According to Kennedy's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Shalom v. Payless Shoesource Worldwide, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • February 5, 2013
    ...the company needed to “get some young blood” did “not evince an intent to discharge an older employee”); Paris v. ARC/Davidson County, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 743, 754–55 (M.D.N.C.2004) (statement about a company “not employ[ing] enough black people” did not constitute direct evidence because, ......
  • Thomas v. Potter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • July 9, 2004
    ...within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act is while the plaintiff is still employed with the defendant. Paris v. Arc/Davidson County, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 743, 758 (M.D.N.C.2004). In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims that his physical impairments "significantly restrict his ability to stand,......
  • Betof v. Suburban Hosp., Inc., Civil Action No. DKC 11-1452
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • June 29, 2012
    ...prove his case for race discrimination with circumstantial evidence using the pretext framework established in McDonnell Douglas. Paris, 307 F.Supp.2d at 754. Under this framework, Mr. Betof must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. A prima facie for discriminator......
  • Shalom v. Payless Shoesource Worldwide, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • February 5, 2013
    ...the company needed to "get some young blood" did "not evince an intent to discharge an older employee"); Paris v. ARC/Davidson County, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 743, 754-55 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (statement about a company "not employ[ing] enough black people" did not constitute direct evidence because,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT