Reeder v. Cnty. of Wayne

• Citation: 177 F.Supp.3d 1059
• Decision Date: 06 April 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 15-cv-10177
• Parties: Yasin Reeder, Plaintiff, v. County of Wayne, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

177 F.Supp.3d 1059

Yasin Reeder, Plaintiff,

v.County of Wayne, Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-10177

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

Signed April 6, 2016

Adam Michael Taub, Keith D. Flynn, Miller Cohen P.L.C., Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Cheryl Yapo, Wayne County Corporation Counsel, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [25]

HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, United States District Court Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 16, 2015, Yasin Reeder (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury against Wayne County (“Defendant”). See Dkt. No. 1, p. 1 (Pg. ID No. 1). On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint, alleging ten violations of state and federal law: violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (Counts I and II); violations of the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADA) (Counts III and IV); violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) (Counts V and VI); violations of Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) (Counts VII and VIII); and violations of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (Counts IX and X). Dkt. No. 3, pp. 10–22 (Pg. ID No. 30–42).

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [25]. The matter is fully briefed and a hearing was held on April 5, 2016, where both parties presented their arguments on the Motion. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

From May 24, 1999 to May 7, 2014, Plaintiff worked as a Police Officer for the Wayne County Sheriff's Office. Dkt. No. 27, pp. 11, 17 (Pg. ID No. 369, 375). In his position, Plaintiff provided inmate security in Wayne County's jail facilities. Dkt. No. 25, p. 12 (Pg. ID No. 161). Plaintiff was required to work a minimum amount of overtime each week, six minutes of roll call prior to each shift, and was also subject to mandatory overtime due to the jail's understaffing. Id . This required overtime was covered by Plaintiff's collective bargaining agreement. Id . Officers in Plaintiff's position did not have the right to refuse overtime assignments. Id . at 14. Any refusal to work mandatory overtime would result in the officer being issued a Conduct Incident Report (“CIR”), documenting the officer's refusal to follow a direct order. Id .

In the last 24 months of his position, Plaintiff was disciplined 13 times for rule violations, culminating with his termination. Dkt. No. 25-2, pp. 2–3 (Pg. ID No. 183–84). In August 2012, Plaintiff received a one-day suspension, which was held in abeyance, for insubordination related to leave time. Id . at 2. He received another suspension in October 2012 for insubordination, conduct, and unsatisfactory performance. Id . Three months later, in January 2013, Plaintiff was orally reprimanded for a leave time and attendance issue. Id . Then in April 2013, Plaintiff was given a written reprimand, followed by a two-day suspension for a subsequent violation, which was held in abeyance, for insubordination and unsatisfactory conduct. Id . Plaintiff's third rule violation in April 2013 was a written reprimand for leave time and attendance. Id . In July 2013, Plaintiff received another written reprimand for unsatisfactory performance. Id .

The repercussions of rule violations gradually increased. In September 2013, Plaintiff was suspended without pay for unsatisfactory performance. Id . A month later, in October 2013, Plaintiff reported to his lieutenant that he was experiencing discomfort and feeling “sick to his stomach” as a result of conflict with a coworker.¹ Dkt. No. 25-14, p. 4 (Pg. ID No. 285). Plaintiff was suspended again that month, for three days without pay, again for insubordination and unsatisfactory performance. Dkt. No. 25-2, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 183). Around this time, Plaintiff sought counseling services through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Dkt. No. 27-15, p. 8 (Pg. ID No. 493). He was not diagnosed with depression or anxiety at that time and did not notify anyone in his command that he was seeking counseling. Id .

In November 2013, Plaintiff was issued a written reprimand for refusal to follow direct orders and use of sick time that Plaintiff had not earned/did not have. Dkt. No. 25-14, p. 4 (Pg. ID No. 285); Dkt. No. 25-14, p. 4 (Pg. ID No. 285). Plaintiff was suspended for eight days without pay in January 2014, for nine instances where he refused overtime shifts in December 2013 and January 2014. Dkt. No. 25-14, p. 4 (Pg. ID No. 285). Four days after his January suspension, Plaintiff produced the first note from a physician, detailing that he suffered from atypical chest pain, situational anxiety, and work-related stress, and restricting Plaintiff to work no more than eight hours per day. Dkt. No. 25, p. 13 (Pg. ID No. 162). Plaintiff claims that he was also manifesting physical symptoms, including high blood pressure

, hair loss, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, vomiting, light-headedness, and dizziness.² Dkt. No. 27, pp. 12–13 (Pg. ID No. 370–71); Dkt. No. 27-3, p. 4 (Pg. ID No. 413). Plaintiff's physician recommended he visit a psychiatrist and psychologist, which he visited a couple weeks later and continued to see three to four times a month until he was terminated. Dkt. No. 27-3, p. 4 (Pg. ID No. 413).

Plaintiff submitted the January 27, 2014 doctor's note to personnel, where an employee allegedly time-stamped it,³ made a copy for Plaintiff's file, and returned the original note to Plaintiff without further instruction. Id . It is undisputed that Plaintiff never received or filled out the required paperwork to take a leave of absence under the FMLA, although Plaintiff had previously completed FMLA leave paperwork for a leave of absence following a car accident in 2008.⁴ Dkt. No. 27-3, p. 3 (Pg. ID No. 412). Plaintiff claims that he also submitted a note from his psychiatrist to personnel in February 2014. Dkt. No. 27-5, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 420). The February 14, 2014 note, which does not bear a time-stamp from the personnel office, merely states that Plaintiff “is under [the doctor's] care for a medical problem,” “is limited to no more than 8 hours per day in the workplace,” and will be reevaluated on “February 11, 2014.”⁵ Id . Plaintiff later submitted a note with similar language to the second doctor's note, dated on March 4, 2014. This third note, which bore a time-stamp from personnel, stated that Plaintiff “is under [the doctor's] care for a medical problem” and “is limited to no more than 8 hours per day in the workplace until further notice.” Dkt. No. 27-5, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 420).

Plaintiff was suspended again for eight days without pay in March 2014, for refusing mandatory overtime on six occasions in January through March 2014. Dkt. No. 25-2, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 183). A disciplinary hearing in March or February marked the first time that Plaintiff informed Deputy Chief Tonya Guy that he was on medication and could not work overtime, explaining that his medical information was in his personnel file. See Dkt. No. 25-14, pp. 21–22 (Pg. ID No. 302–03); Dkt. No. 27-3, p. 5 (Pg. ID No. 414). Plaintiff refused to show his superiors a copy of the medical documentation.⁶ Id . Guy was skeptical of the veracity of Plaintiff's medical condition because she thought he wanted to evade the day shift to rest before his other job coaching football at Wayne State University. Dkt. No. 25-15, p. 9 (Pg. ID No. 324). Guy attempted to corroborate Plaintiff's explanation by looking in Plaintiff's personnel file for his medical documentation, but she was unable to locate it since she was not aware it would be stored in a separate file. Id . at 19–20. Had Plaintiff shown Guy his medical documentation, Guy asserts that Plaintiff would not have been terminated. Id . at 20.

On April 14, 2014, Plaintiff's police powers were suspended and his gun and badge were taken away. Dkt. No. 27-3, pp. 6 (Pg. ID No. 415). Plaintiff left work early that day, telling Lieutenant Jason Bates that he did not feel well and was overwhelmed. Id . Plaintiff filed a charge with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights on April 21, 2014, stating that he had requested reasonable accommodation on April 13, 2014 and had not been accommodated because of his race and disability. Dkt. No. 27-14, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 485).

Meanwhile, Plaintiff claims that several other employees were allowed to exercise FMLA rights to avoid working mandatory overtime. Dkt. No, 27, p. 11–12 (Pg. ID No. 369–70). Defendant identified four employees who were eligible under the FMLA to be exempt from ordered overtime: Rachel Lebendig, Arnold Oz, Jeremy Cady, and Robert Festerman. Dkt. No. 27-2, p. 7 (Pg. ID No. 403). Guy identified one of the four as a white female and another as a white male. Dkt. No. 27-17, pp. 7–8 (Pg. ID No. 515–16). Bates identified a third as a white male, but also identified two more officers currently receiving FMLA who were eligible to avoid mandatory overtime. Dkt. No. 27-16, p. 10 (Pg. ID No. 508). Both of the new officers Bates identified were African-American females. Id . Additionally, Plaintiff claims another officer, Corporal Nicole Summers, who is white and had cancer

, was allowed to work the front desk without overtime. Dkt. No. 27-3, p. 6 (Pg. ID No. 415). Defendant explained that Summers was assigned to the front desk because she was the highest seniority bidder, that she did in fact work overtime, and that she had completed the required FMLA forms. Dkt. No. 25, p. 30 (Pg. ID No. 179).

Finally, on May 6, 2014, Defendants terminated Plaintiff for two instances in March and April 2014 where he refused mandatory orders to work overtime. Dkt. No. 25-2, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 184). Plaintiff's union pursued Plaintiff's grievances against Defendant to arbitration in September 2014. The arbitration award, issued in November 2014, noted that Plaintiff's...