Picard v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 September 2022
• Docket Number: 2:20-CV-10005-TGB-APP
• Parties: JOYCE PICARD, an individual, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

JOYCE PICARD, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant.

No. 2:20-CV-10005-TGB-APP

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 9, 2022

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Joyce Picard seeks relief against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation for two causes of action: (1) a disability discrimination/failure to accommodate claim under the Michigan Persons with Disability Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) and (2) a workers' compensation retaliation claim under the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA). Defendant moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 25. For the reasons explained below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Costco is a foreign for-profit corporation that does business in the Township of Van Buren, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. ECF No. 8, PageID.39. Joyce Picard was hired by Costco as a Depot Clerk on June 15, 2017. ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14. The Depot Clerk role has several enumerated essential job functions listed in Costco's Job Analysis form, including, but not limited to, scheduling appointments with carriers and vendors to receive trailer loads at the depot, inspecting conditions of goods for quality, safety, and stability, and maintaining an accurate inventory report through the physical count of goods. Picard Dep., ECF No. 26, PageID.162; Job Analysis, Id. at PageID.210-12. Costco lists sitting, standing, and walking as frequent physical demands for carrying out the essential job functions. Id. at PageID.210-12. Further, the role requires occasionally bending, squatting, climbing, reaching, and lifting over twenty pounds. Id.

On July 7, 2017, Picard slipped and fell on the depot's wax floor and injured her elbow, forcing her to miss work until September 11, 2017. Picard Dep., ECF No. 26, PageID.163. Picard filed a workers' compensation claim for this injury which Costco fulfilled without incident. Id. Picard returned to work without any restrictions regarding physical demands. Picard Dep., ECF No. 26, PageID.216.

On November 17, 2017, Picard injured her back while lifting heavy boxes. ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14. This injury resulted in a diagnosis of

2

scoliosis, disc herniations, and spondylolistheses at the L5-S1 level of her spine, along with physician-imposed work restrictions that limited her lifting capabilities to twenty pounds, her walking, and her ability to sit and stand at will. ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14-15; Medical Record, ECF No. 26, PageID.233. Picard filed a workers' compensation claim for this injury and received compensation until August 2018. ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14

Pursuant to Costco's Interim Community Employment Program (ICEP), Picard was sent to the Habitat for Humanity on a temporary transitional duty to perform job functions consistent with her medical restrictions for a maximum of twelve weeks. ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14; ECF No. 25, PageID.109-10. After Picard exhausted the twelve weeks on November 13, 2018, she was still unable to perform her Depot Clerk role due to the medical restrictions still in place. Picard Dep., ECF No. 26, PageID.172. As such, Picard remained on leave of absence. ECF No. 25, Page ID.110.

During this time, Costco held three job assessment meetings and both parties determined at each assessment that Picard could not resume her role as a Depot Clerk with or without accommodations given her medical restrictions. Picard Dep., ECF No. 26, PageID.183; see also Job Assessment, Id. at PageID.223-32. During Picard's leave of absence, Costco sent her available job positions that she expressed interest in that were within her classification or below. Id. at PageID.177. Picard applied for one of these positions (photo lab assistant) internally, but she was not

3

selected for the role because she could not meet the lifting requirement. Id. at PageID.178-79.

On June 19, 2022, two-and-a-half years after the initial injury, Costco received Picard's latest medical restrictions which still prohibited Picard from lifting, pushing, and pulling more than twenty pounds and squatting. ECF No. 26, PageID.111. On August 11, 2020, Costco terminated Picard's employment. ECF No. 25, PageID.254. Picard found employment with the Habitat for Humanity in January 2019 as a clerk and is currently employed there. Picard Dep., ECF No. 26, PageID.173-74.

Plaintiff's complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) a disability discrimination/failure to accommodate claim under the Michigan Persons with Disability Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) and (2) a workers' compensation retaliation claim under the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA). Defendant now moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

2. LEGAL STANDARD

“Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact such that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Villegas v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 709 F.3d 563, 568 (6th Cir. 2013);

4

see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).

On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citations omitted); Redding v. St. Eward, 241 F.3d 530, 531 (6th Cir. 2001).

The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party carries this burden, the party opposing the motion “must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. The trial court is not required to “search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.” Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir. 1989). Rather, the “nonmoving party has an affirmative duty to direct the court's attention to those specific portions of the record upon which it seeks to rely to create a genuine issue of material fact.” In re Morris, 260 F.3d 654, 655 (6th Cir. 2001). The Court must then determine whether the evidence presents a sufficient factual disagreement to require submission of the challenged claims to the trier of fact or whether the moving party must prevail as a matter of law. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

5

3. DISCUSSION

A. Disability Discrimination Claim under the PWDCRA

The purpose of the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) is to “cover and protect only those persons whose disabilities are unrelated to their ability to do a given job. Thus, the special duties imposed on employers under the act only arise as to employees whose disabilities are unrelated to their ability to perform their jobs.” Johnson v. Lansing Dairy Co., 438 N.W.2d 257, 259 (Mich.App. 1988).

The PWDCRA provides that “a person shall accommodate a person with a disability for purposes of employment . . . unless the person demonstrates that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.” M.C.L. § 37.1102(2). If an employer employs a qualifying “disabled” person under the statute, it shall not “discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of a disability. . . that is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.” Id. § 37.1202(1)(b).

To prove a prima facie case for discrimination under the PWDCRA, the plaintiff must “show (1) that [s]he is [disabled] as defined in the act, (2) that the [disability] is unrelated to h[er] ability to perform h[er] job duties, and (3) that [s]he has been discriminated against” due to her

6

disabilities. Chmielewski v. Xermac, Inc., 457 N.W.2d 817, 821 (Mich. 1998); Donahoo v. Master Data Ctr., 282 F.Supp.2d 540, 548 (E.D. Mich. 2003).

Claims involving indirect evidence of discrimination, as pertinent here, follow the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Talley v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc., 542 F.3d 1099, 1105 (6th Cir. 2008); see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this framework, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. Talley, 542 F.3d at 1105. If the plaintiff successfully establishes the prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.” Id. If the defendant meets this, the plaintiff then has the burden to show the action was a pretext for discrimination. Id.

a. Picard is not disabled as defined by the PWDCRA.

As defined in the statute, a “disability” is “a determinable physical or mental characteristic of an individual” that “substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.” M.C.L. § 37.1103(d)(i)(A). Michigan courts have adopted the following test in assessing a qualifying disability: “First, we consider whether . . . [there is] a physical impairment. Second, we identify the life activity upon which [the plaintiff] relies . . . and determine whether it constitutes a major life activity. Third, we ask whether the impairment substantially

7

limited the major life activity.” Donahoo, 282 F.Supp.2d at 548 (quoting Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998)). Michigan...