Rocha v. Coastal Carolina Neuropsychiatric Crisis Servs., P.A.

• Decision Date: 16 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. 7:12–CV–2–D.,7:12–CV–2–D.
• Citation: 979 F.Supp.2d 670
• Parties: Maurice ROCHA, Plaintiff, v. COASTAL CAROLINA NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CRISIS SERVICES, P.A., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina

979 F.Supp.2d 670

Maurice ROCHA, Plaintiff,

v.COASTAL CAROLINA NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CRISIS SERVICES, P.A., Defendant.

No. 7:12–CV–2–D.

United States District Court,

E.D. North Carolina,

Southern Division.

Oct. 16, 2013.

Maurice Rocha, Jacksonville, NC, pro se.

Hayley Roper Wells, Ward and Smith P.A., Asheville, NC, William A. Oden, III, Ward and Smith, P.A., New Bern, NC, for Defendant.

ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER III, Chief Judge.

On January 4, 2012, Maurice Rocha (“Rocha”) filed this employment discrimination action against Coastal Carolina Neuropsychiatric Crisis Services, P.A. (“CCNCS”), Ash Mikhail (“Mikhail”), and Tobi Gilbert (“Gilbert”) (collectively “defendants”). See [D.E. 1]. In his complaint, Rocha (who is proceeding pro se) alleged that CCNCS, Mikhail, and Gilbert terminated his employment as a mental health worker with CCNCS in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701–796, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e–17 (“Title VII”). On January 23, 2012, Rocha filed an amended complaint alleging that he was terminated because of a disability and due to his national origin (“first amended complaint”) [D.E. 6]. On March 5, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and an answer to Rocha's complaint and first amended complaint, admitting that CCNCS terminated Rocha's employment, but denying unlawful employment discrimination [D.E. 20]. According to CCNCS, it terminated Rocha's employment because he failed to disclose three felony cocaine possession convictions on his employment application.

On June 20, 2012, the court allowed Rocha to amend his complaint for the second time. See [D.E. 31]. In his second amended complaint [D.E. 32], Rocha omits any reference to the Rehabilitation Act, thereby withdrawing any claim related to the Rehabilitation Act, but restates his disparate treatment claim under the ADA and his disparate impact claim under Title VII. Specifically, Rocha contends that (1) CCNCS regarded him as being a drug addict and terminated his employment in violation of the ADA and (2) CCNCS has a policy of not hiring people convicted of crimes, which has a disparate impact on Hispanics in violation of Title VII. On June 20, 2012, the court held that defendants Mikhail and Gilbert could not be individually liable under the ADA or Title VII and dismissed them from the action. See [D.E. 31].

On June 27, 2013, CCNCS moved for summary judgment [D.E. 113] and filed a memorandum [D.E. 114] and evidence [D.E. 115] in support. Essentially, CCNCS contends that it never regarded Rocha as being disabled or being a drug addict and that it has never had a policy of not hiring people convicted of crimes. Rather, CCNCS contends that it terminated Rocha's employment after concluding that Rocha made a material misrepresentation about his criminal history on his employment application. Rocha responded in opposition [D.E. 118, 119, 120] to CCNCS's motion for summary judgment and filed his own cross-motion for summary judgment [D.E. 125]. Thereafter, the parties filed responses, replies, and numerous other motions. As explained below, the court grants CCNCS's motion for summary judgment and denies all other motions.

I.

CCNCS operated an out-patient mental health treatment facility in Jacksonville, North Carolina where it treated patients with mental health disorders and drug addictions. [D.E. 115–1], Gilbert Aff. ¶ 6 (“Gilbert Aff.”).¹ CCNCS offered several mental health services in Jacksonville, including a 23–hour observation service, a non-hospital based medical detox service, and a crisis facility. Id. The medical detox service and crisis facility were both licensed pursuant to the Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Act of 1985. See id. ¶ 7; N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 122C–1– 122C–433. CCNCS's treatment of patients often included the use of controlled substances, narcotics, and other medications. Gilbert Aff. ¶¶ 15–16.

On October 13, 2010, Rocha applied for employment with CCNCS as a mental health worker. Id. ¶¶ 9–14. As part of the application process, Rocha completed an employment application. The employment application contained the following statement and question:

A RECORD OF CONVICTION DOES NOT NECESSARILY DISQUALIFY YOU FROM EMPLOYMENT CONSIDERATION. Have you ever been CONVICTED of a felony or misdemeanor, other than traffic violations? YES ____ NO ____.

If YES, list only convictions and dates: _____.

[D.E. 115–1] 8. On his employment application, Rocha wrote that he had never been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor. Id. The employment application also contained the following statement, which Rocha signed, certifying that his employment application was true, correct, and complete:

IMPORTANT–READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING

I certify that the information provided in this Application for Employment is true, correct and complete. If employed, any misstatement or omission of material fact on this application will result in my immediate dismissal. I authorize all persons, schools, companies, corporations, credit bureaus, government agencies, or any other party to release information concerning my background which may include, but is not limited to, criminal, credit, driver's records, so long as not prohibited by law and the requests are job related.

Id. 9 (emphasis added).

As part of the application process, Dr. Tobi Gilbert, CCNCS's Clinical Director, interviewed Rocha. See Gilbert Aff. ¶ 10. Dr. Gilbert's interview notes indicate that she “liked” Rocha. See [D.E. 115–3] 2. During the interview, Rocha never mentioned his felony convictions, never stated that he was a recovering drug addict, and never asked for any accommodation under the ADA. See [D.E. 115–7], Rocha Dep. 87–88, 102–07 (“Rocha Dep.”). After the interview, CCNCS extended a conditional employment offer to Rocha on October 18, 2012. See Gilbert Aff. ¶¶ 10–12. In accordance with its standard employment procedure, CCNCS conditioned Rocha's employment offer upon Rocha submitting to a criminal background check. See id. Upon making the conditional offer of employment to Rocha, CCNCS provided Rocha with a copy of the CCNCS employee handbook (“CCNCS handbook”), which contained CCNCS's employment policies. [D.E. 115–1], Ex. C; Gilbert Aff. ¶ 12. The CCNCS handbook states in relevant part:

Standards and Misconduct Issues

We have established standards and work rules which are designed to provide the orderly and safe conduct of employees while on the practice's property The list of unacceptable behavior below (which is not all-inclusive) represents the types which may subject an individual to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

• Misrepresentation in seeking employment.

• Dishonesty, stealing or removal of another employee's property....

[D.E. 115–1] 26 (emphasis added). The CCNCS handbook also states that “[e]mployees are free to leave CCNCS's service at any time and that any employee can be terminated at any time with or without notice and with or without stated cause [or] reason, except [as] prohibited by law.” [D.E. 115–1] 15.

Rocha also received a copy of CCNCS's criminal records policy. See [D.E. 115–1], Ex. D; Gilbert Aff. ¶ 12. The CCNCS criminal records policy protects “the safety of people served by CCNCS, and the agency's employees [ ] and ... recognize[s] that people in recovery from substance abuse, who may be good candidates for employment, may have committed crimes while using substances. A careful review of candidates' criminal histories will take both [of] these factors into account.” Id. The CCNCS criminal records policy sets forth CCNCS's procedure in conducting criminal background checks, and included the following statement: “[a]ll applicants are expected to reflect the information that will be disclosed on the criminal history report. Any deceit, intentional or unintentional, may disqualify a candidate from a position for which they are being considered.” Id. (emphasis added); Gilbert Aff. ¶ 13. ²

On October 21, 2010, Rocha completed an authorization/release form. See [D.E. 115–6], Ex. F; [D.E. 115–7], Rocha Dep. 95. The authorization/release form authorized Adams Keegan (a national human resources company that managed human resources for CCNCS) to review Rocha's background, including his criminal background, and permitted Adams Keegan to provide CCNCS an investigative consumer report concerning Rocha for employment purposes. See [D.E. 115–6], Ex. F; Gilbert Aff. ¶¶ 10–11. Rocha acknowledged in the authorization/release form that his criminal background would be checked. See [D.E. 115–6], Ex. F.

CCNCS conducted criminal history record checks of all applicants applying for positions that did not require an occupational license. Gilbert Aff. ¶ 11. Rocha's duties as a mental health worker would place him in close proximity to patients to whom CCNCS dispensed controlled substances, and CCNCS had to keep a record of its patients who took controlled substances. See id. ¶¶ 14–20. CCNCS conditionedRocha's offer of employment upon CCNCS receiving satisfactory results following Adams Keegan's comprehensive review of Rocha's background, including his criminal history. Id. ¶¶ 10–12. Given that Rocha did not disclose any criminal history on his employment application, CCNCS expected to receive a background check reflecting no criminal history. See id. ¶¶ 10–13, 20–25.

Before CCNCS received and reviewed the results of Rocha's criminal history report from Adams Keegan, Rocha asked to meet with Dr. Gilbert. See Gilbert Aff. ¶ 27; [D.E. 115–7], Rocha Dep. 101–07, 135–37. Before asking for the meeting, Rocha knew that he had failed to reveal any criminal convictions on his employment application. See Rocha Dep. 106. On October 22, 2010, Dr. Gilbert met with Rocha. Rocha told Dr. Gilbert that when he was young he had a drug conviction, which he had failed to disclose on his employment...