Polak v. Sterilite Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-2972-D |
| Parties | ANTHONY POLAK, Plaintiff, v. STERILITE CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
This suit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., arises from a positive random drug test that resulted in the plaintiff's termination and from the defendant's failure to rehire the plaintiff. The court must decide whether the plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment on his discrimination and retaliation claims. Concluding that he has not, the court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismisses this action with prejudice by judgment filed today.
Defendant Sterilite Corporation ("Sterilite") is a company that produces various plastic products using injection molding.1 From September 2002 until April 2019, plaintiffAnthony Polak ("Polak") worked at Sterilite's Ennis, Texas plant. At the time of his termination, Polak was employed as an assistant supervisor.
Sterilite maintains a Substance Abuse Policy ("Policy") that applies to all employees. The Policy, inter alia, prohibits "[a]ny use of drugs which are illegal under federal or state law, whether on or off Sterilite time, if the use results in drugs being present in an employee's system while at work." D. App. 55. It provides for post-accident drug and alcohol testing, for testing "if there is a reasonable suspicion of employee impairment while on Sterilite's premises or during the hours of employment based on specific facts and rational[] inferences,"2 and for "[r]andom testing, as allowed by state or local statute, at periodic intervals to maintain safety and productivity." Id. at 56.
Under the heading "Testing Procedures," the Policy states that "Sterilite will use a variety of testing methods . . . [which] may include urinalysis, saliva, hair follicle and breath or blood alcohol," id.; that "urinalysis or saliva testing are the preferred methods of testing,"id.; and that "Sterilite will use urinalysis to test for drug abuse," id. at 57. In cases where saliva testing is used, the Policy provides:
On March 26, 2019 Polak and five other employees were randomly selected for drug testing. Sterilite used the saliva-testing method. With a swab, Polak swabbed his own cheek and under on his tongue, placed the swab in a vial and sealed it, and placed the vial in an envelope that he also sealed. Polak returned to his work following the drug test and continued to work until April 1, 2019.
Sterilite submitted Polak's saliva to Quest Diagnostics ("Quest"), a third-party lab, to perform an enzyme immunoassay (also referred to as a "rapid test"). Sterilite maintainsthat, when the sample tested positive for THC3 using the rapid test, Quest tested the sample again using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to confirm the results.4
On March 31, 2019 Quest allegedly contacted one of Sterilite's Human Resources Managers, Ada Jack ("Jack"), and requested that Jack have Polak contact Quest's Medical Review Officer ("MRO"). Polak contacted the MRO, who informed Polak that his saliva sample had tested positive for THC.
The following day, Jack received Polak's positive drug test results and discussed them with him over the telephone. Polak told Jack that he had not used marijuana in over 30 years. Polak requested to speak with a Sterilite representative about the positive test result, but no one whom he contacted responded. Polak maintains that he was never given a copy of his positive test result. Sterilite terminated Polak's employment on April 1, 2019, allegedly because Jack believed that Polak had violated the Policy.5
On April 5, 2019 Polak took a hair follicle drug test at LabCorp, a different third-party lab. He sent the test results to Jack and to Sterilite's occupational health nurse, the Vice President of Human Resources, the Ennis facility plant manager, and the Sterilite corporate Human Resources Manager. Sterilite maintains that Polak's April 5, 2019 test did not comply with the Policy and that Sterilite did not reinstate Polak upon receipt of the hair follicle test because Polak did not follow the proper procedures for obtaining a retest of a confirmed positive sample.
After Polak exhausted his administrative remedies, he filed the instant suit against Sterilite. In his amended complaint, he alleges claims under the ADA for discrimination "on the basis that he was regarded as disabled," Am. Compl. ¶ 11, and for retaliation.
Sterilite moves for summary judgment on all of Polak's claims. Polak opposes the motion. The court has heard oral argument.6
When a party moves for summary judgment on claims on which the opposing party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can meet its summary judgment obligation by pointing the court to the absence of admissible evidence to support the nonmovant's claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party does so, the nonmovant must go beyond his pleadings and designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam). An issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmovant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The nonmovant's failure to produce proof as to any essential element of a claim renders all other facts immaterial. See TruGreen Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott, 512 F.Supp.2d 613, 623 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (Fitzwater, J.). Summary judgment is mandatory if the nonmovant fails to meet his burden. Little, 37 F.3d at 1076.
The court turns first to Polak's ADA discrimination claim.
The ADA mandates that "[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To prevail on his discrimination claim, Polak must present direct or circumstantial evidence that his disability or perceived disability was the reason for Sterilite's adverse employment action. See, e.g., Seaman v. CSPH, Inc., 179 F.3d 297, 300 (5th Cir. 1999). "Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, proves the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption." West v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 330 F.3d 379, 384 n.3 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir. 2002)) (age discrimination case). "If an inference is required for the evidence to be probative as to [defendant's] discriminatory animus in firing [plaintiff], the evidence is circumstantial, not direct." Sandstad, 309 F.3d at 897-98.
When a plaintiff does not present direct evidence of discrimination, the court applies the modified McDonnell Douglas7 paradigm. See Seaman, 179 F.3d at 300 (). As modified, the McDonnell Douglas framework consists of three stages. First, Polak must establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which "creates a presumption that [Sterilite] unlawfully discriminated against [him]." Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on a disability under the ADA, Polak must show that (1) he suffers from a disability or is regarded as disabled; (2) he is qualified for the job despite the disability; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action due to his disability; and (4) he was replaced by a non-disabled person or treated less favorably than nondisabled employees. See, e.g., Milton v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice, 707 F.3d 570, 573 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Daigle v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 70 F.3d 394, 396 (5th Cir. 1995)).
Second, if Polak establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Sterilite to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment actions taken against him. See St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07 (1993). Sterilite's burden is one of production, not proof, and involves no credibility assessments. See, e.g., West, 330 F.3d at 385.
Third, if Sterilite meets its production burden, Polak must show that the legitimate reasons proffered by Sterilite "were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253); see also EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 615(5th Cir. 2009).8 Therefore, to survive summary judgment, Polak must "offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact . . . that [Sterilite's] reason is not true, but is instead a pretext for discrimination." Rachid v. Jack In The Box, Inc., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial