Pedroza v. Autozone, Inc.

Decision Date29 January 2008
Docket NumberNo. EP-06-CV-00051-KC.,EP-06-CV-00051-KC.
Citation536 F.Supp.2d 679
PartiesRogelio PEDROZA, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

Francisco X. Dominguez, Dominguez & Coyle, P.L.L.C., Jesus M. Hernandez, Attorney at Law, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff.

James A. Mounts, III, Tracy Kern, Rincon Mounts, PC, El Paso, TX, Robert B. Worley, Jr., Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant.

ORDER

KATHLEEN CARDONE, District Judge.

On this day, the Court considered Defendant Autozone, Inc.'s "Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Motion"). For the reasons outlined below, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The following derives from Defendant Autozone, Inc.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts, "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Response"), and the various depositions attached to the Summary Judgment pleadings.1

Plaintiff Rogelio Pedroza ("Pedroza") began his employment with Defendant Autozone Inc. ("Autozone") on August 27, 1996. Def.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts ("Def.'s Facts") ¶ 2; Pedroza Dep. 34:1-7, Jul. 25, 2007. Pedroza began his tenure with Autozone as a salesperson, wherein he performed a number of duties related to sales and customer support. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 2-3; Pedroza Dep. 34:16-18.

As an Autozone salesperson, Pedroza was required to assist customers both at their cars in the parking lot and inside the store. Def.'s Facts ¶ 3; Pedroza Dep. 45;15-18. Inside the store, Pedroza's duties included greeting customers, assisting customers with looking up parts, and retrieving parts that could sometimes weigh in excess of fifty (50) pounds. Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 3-4; Pedroza Dep. 55:16-56:14. Additionally, Pedroza was required to stock shelves2 and clean the store's bathrooms and floors. Pedroza Dep. 64:17-20. Generally, his job duties required him to bend over, stoop, climb ladders, and twist frequently, while also requiring him to stand nearly the entire time he was working. Id. at 58:5-20.

Outside the store, Autozone also required employees to perform duties under their "Gotcha" service policy. Id. at 56:20-22. Under this policy, Pedroza was required to carry items, sometimes weighing up to fifty (50) pounds, to the cars of customers. Id. at 56:12-19. Salespersons, like Pedroza, were also tasked with installing wiper blades3 and batteries in the vehicles of customers. Id. at 56:20-23. In addition, Pedroza was required to test customer's alternators and starters. Id. at 56:24-57:2.

By Pedroza's account, he served at least part of his time as an Autozone salesperson as both a "sales[person] and driver." Id. at 40:5. In his own words, "[w]hen I was not driving, I would take care of customers on the counter." Id. at 40:7-8. On May 6, 1998, while serving in his capacity as an Autozone driver, Pedroza was rearended at a stoplight. Id. at 40:9-11; Def.'s Facts ¶ 3. As a result of the accident, he suffered injuries to his lower back and shoulder. Pedroza Dep. 40:12-17. Specifically, Pedroza was diagnosed with a herniated disc in the lumbar spine and a sprain or tear of the left rotator cuff. Def.'s Facts ¶ 7; Reeves Dep. 40:16-17, May 11, 2007.

Pedroza spent seven months away from work to recuperate from his May 1998 injury. Def.'s Facts ¶ 7. Before his return in November 1998, his physician placed a number of restrictions on how he could perform his duties at Autozone. Def.'s Facts. ¶ 8. These included (1) occasionally lifting a maximum of 15 pounds above the shoulders or from below the knees; (2) occasionally climbing, squatting, kneeling and crawling; (3) no twisting his upper body; (4) alternating sitting and standing every thirty minutes; (5) standing no longer than four hours per day; and (6) working no longer than eight hours per day. Reeves Dep. Ex. 2.4

On October 22,1999, Pedroza suffered a second workplace injury while stocking the store shelves with antifreeze. Def.'s Facts ¶ 9. After being relieved of his duties at the cash register by Joe Villasana and tasked with helping to unload an incoming truck, Pedroza proceeded to unload a pallet of antifreeze, two bottles at a time, while twisting to place the bottles on the shelves. Pedroza Dep. 52:2-6. As a result, he injured his mid-back, resulting in his T6 and T7 vertebrae being crushed by compression fractures. Def.'s Facts ¶ 9; Pedroza Dep. 52:24-53:4. Pedroza continued to work, however, for four more months. Pedroza Dep. 54:2-9. Based upon the restrictions that accompanied his injury and his inability to perform his job functions, Autozone took Pedroza off the job from February to August of 2000. Id. at 54:10-55:8. After, approximately eight months away from the workplace, Pedroza returned to work with the same physical restrictions as before. Id. at 59:7-60:13.

Pedroza reports that after returning to work in August of 2000, he resumed his regular service functions and was able to perform his job. Id. at 61:7-62:7. Although he recalls asking for accommodations upon his return, Pedroza contends that, neither his manager, Phil Ortega, nor his assistant manager accepted his request. Id. at 62:8-16. By his own account, however, Pedroza asked only for a fifteen-minute break every two to three hours. Id. at 62:19-63:8. Irrespective of what drove him to resume his full duties, the record reflects that he did continue to violate his own physician's job restrictions by continuing to bend, stoop, and lift more than fifty. (50) pounds. Def.'s Facts ¶ 10; Pedroza Dep. 61:13-62:7.

Attempting to perform an Autozone salesperson's full range of duties while under the limitations of his physical injuries soon led to a host of complications. These included pain, leaving work early, taking days off, and asking co-workers for assistance with routine duties. Id.; Pedroza Dep. 73:11-22. Furthermore, these ware issues that constantly plagued Pedroza. Def.'s Facts ¶ 10; Pedroza Dep. 78:23-74:1.

On October 19, 2000, Pedroza received "corrective action" for exceeding his lifting restrictions at work. Def.'s Facts ¶ 12. Autozone contends that Pedroza removed a battery, weighing approximately forty (40) pounds, from the battery rack while he was under restrictions not to life more than fifteen (15) pounds. Def.'s Facts ¶ 12; Pedroza Dep. 68:21-25. Pedroza Offers a competing account, stating instead that a customer came in to have a battery tested, and despite his efforts to elicit help from his co-workers, when none of his colleagues would assist him, he took it upon himself to provide the customer with service. Pedroza Dep. 69:8-70:3. After the incident, he claims that he complained to, his store manager to no avail. Id. at 69:4-7.

On December 11, 2000, Pedroza received another corrective action for failing to inform his manager that he was not returning from lunch. Def.'s Facts ¶ 13. Pedroza counters, claiming that he informed a manager-in-training, wearing the shirt color reserved for management, that he was leaving on account of a "severe pain episode." Pedroza Dep. 75:14-76:13. In August of 2001, Pedroza again left work when his "pain became intolerable." Id. at 81:22-82:17.

Autozone cited Pedroza for another violation of his lifting restrictions on September 17, 2001, when he again attempted to lift a battery. Def.'s Facts ¶ 14. The customer actually removed the battery from her vehicle, but upon doing so, she sustained burns to her left hand. Pedroza Dep. 86:17-87:5. Despite a co-worker's assurances that he would change the battery out in the car, when that assistance did not materialize and Pedroza had witnessed the customer burn herself, Pedroza took it upon himself to lift the battery into the cart and take, it into the store for testing. Id. at 86:13-89:4. This activity resulted in. Pedroza injuring his hand and remaining absent from work for three days. Def.'s Facts ¶ 14; Pedroza Dep. 89:6-11.

Along with pain and injury, absenteeism accompanied Pedroza's continued attempts to perform the full range of his duties. Def.'s Facts ¶ 15. By January of 2004, when a new District Manager, Jacob Lozano ("Lozano"), had assumed responsibility for Pedroza's store, Lozano noted that Pedroza had been absent from work seven out of forty (40) days. Id. 16; Pedroza Dep. 124:20-23. Consequently, Pedroza received a corrective action for absenteeism in February of 2004. Def.'s Facts ¶ 16. These frequent absences also led Lozano to request an updated work release from Pedroza's physician. Id. 17.

On February 10, 2004, Dr. Reeves released Pedroza to work with essentially the same restrictions as before, with no lifting over thirty" (30) to thirty-nine (39) pounds. Id.; Pedroza Dep. 98:11-99:2. Operating under these restrictions, Pedroza admitted that he could not perform the essential functions of his job without getting injured or having to go home because of pain. Def.'s Facts ¶ 18; Pedroza Dep. 99:3-100:19. Therefore, in consideration of Pedroza's injury-driven absences, his continued disregard for his restrictions, and the sheer scope of his workplace limitations, Autozone concluded that he could no longer perform the essential functions of his job. Def.'s Facts ¶ 19. As a result, Autozone informed Pedroza that it could not accommodate his restrictions until they were lessened. Id. Furthermore, Autozone placed him on Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") leave beginning February 19, 2004. Id.; Pedroza Dep. 99:3-100:19.

On February 24, 2004, Pedroza requested that Dr. Reeves sign a work release form permitting him work with zero restrictions. Def.'s Facts ¶ 20; Pedroza Dep. 104:10-13. Pedroza claims that he did so after "Autozone requested the form," so that he could "feed [his] family and get back [his] hours." Pedroza Dep. 108:9-13. Nevertheless, based upon his six years of experience as his physician,5 Dr. Reeves informed Pedroza that such a release was not appropriate. Def.'s Facts ¶ 20; Pe...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Stockton v. Christus Health Se. Tex.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • February 3, 2017
    ...limit a major life activity. See, e.g., Tyler, 506 F. App'x at 268; Sherrod, 132 F.3d at 1120; Ray, 85 F.3d at 229; Pedroza, 536 F. Supp. 2d at 693-94; Middleton, 139 F. Supp. 2d at 793. "Heavy lifting" is defined broadly in this circuit and encompasses anything from 5 to 45 pounds. See, e.......
  • Quick v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • June 2, 2017
    ...physical impairment that (2) substantially limits (3) a major life activity." Dupre, 242 F.3d at 613; see also Pedroza v. Autozone, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 679, 690 (W.D. Tex. 2008). Quick argues that she was not accommodated by Walmart when she returned to work with a twenty-pound lifting re......
  • Cortez v. Raytheon Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • October 1, 2009
    ...Cir.1993) (employer not required to eliminate essential job functions in order to furnish an accommodation); Pedroza v. Autozone, Inc., 536 F.Supp.2d 679, 697 (W.D.Tex.2008) (same). Additionally, the best Cortez could offer as to when she would return to work was speculation that she could ......
  • Cruz v. R2Sonic, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • September 26, 2019
    ...Inc. , 132 F.3d 1112, 1120 (5th Cir. 1998) ; Ray v. Glidden Co. , 85 F.3d 227, 229 (5th Cir. 1996) ; Pedroza v. Autozone, Inc. , 536 F. Supp. 2d 679, 693–94 (W.D. Tex. 2008) ; Middleton v. Ball-Foster Glass Container Co., L.L.C. , 139 F. Supp. 2d 782, 793 (N.D. Tex. 2001), aff'd , 31 F. App......
  • 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