Sisco v. Morton Buildings, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:19-cv-02787-HLT |
| Parties | CHAD SISCO, Plaintiff, v. MORTON BUILDINGS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Chad Sisco brings claims for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) against Defendant Morton Buildings, Inc. Docs. 1, 71. Defendant moves for summary judgment. Doc. 75. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his unlawful medical examination claim and otherwise fails to set forth a prima facie case for his other claims, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff began working at Defendant's plant in Winfield, Kansas as a temporary worker in November 2016. Doc. 71 at 2. Plaintiff's hours varied based on the week, and he did various jobs at the plant. DSOF 5-6. Plaintiff started out building trusses for roofs using a nail gun, and then he moved out to the yard where he helped move lumber. DSOF 6. Plaintiff occasionally operated a forklift. DSOF 7. In February 2017, Defendant offered Plaintiff a full-time job conditioned on him successfully completing a medical screening by Occu-Med. Doc. 71 at 3. Occu-Med contracted with Defendant to provide medical screenings. Id. Occu-Med evaluated Plaintiff based on a written job profile dated January 2005. Id.
After a physical examination and completion of a medical questionnaire, Occu-Med asked Plaintiff to obtain additional information from his health-care providers. Id. Occu-Med needed additional information because Plaintiff disclosed that he had recently started taking Latuda for mild depression. Doc. 76-20 at 4; Doc. 71 at 4. Plaintiff did not disclose on his medical history questionnaire that he was taking Latuda, a prescription psychotropic medication, for schizophrenia. See Doc. 76-20 at 4; Doc. 71 at 2, 4; DSOF 14.[2] Moreover, shortly after the conditional job offer was made, Plaintiff's prescription was doubled, and he began taking a higher dosage. See Doc. 71 at 2-3. Latuda has many recognized side effects, including dizziness, light-headedness, nausea, metabolic changes, akathisia (restlessness of the muscles), and tardive dyskinesia (involuntary movement of the eyes, mouth, hands, arms, feet, and legs). DSOF 23.
Consequently, on February 27, 2017, Occu-Med asked Plaintiff to provide additional information from his health care providers regarding whether he could safely perform the duties of the new job with or without restriction or accommodation. DSOF 57.[3] On March 2, Four County Mental Health Center faxed a letter from the physician assistant who had prescribed Latuda to Plaintiff. DSOF 62; Doc. 85-2 at 86:14-88:18; Doc. 76-22.[4] The letter stated that Plaintiff DSOF 62; Doc. 76-22 at 2.
Occu-Med deemed this letter unresponsive, so it sent a follow-up email on March 3 asking Plaintiff to provide additional information from his health-care providers regarding his medication and whether he could safely perform the duties of his new job. DSOF 63, 65. A letter attached to the email requested the following:
DSOF 66.[5] Plaintiff requested more time to get the necessary documentation, which Defendant granted. Doc. 76-26 at 3; Doc. 71 at 4. On March 7, Four County Mental Health Center faxed another letter from Plaintiff's physician assistant. DSOF 70. The letter stated the following:
[Plaintiff] is currently under my care at Four County Mental Health Center in Winfield, KS. We are currently treating him for mood instability, auditory hallucinations, paranoid depression, anger, and history of suicidal ideation. Current diagnosis that we have is Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder and Unspecified Depressive Disorder. After recent medication change, he seems to be doing well. He is stable. His target symptoms seem to be in remission at this point in time per patient report as well as reports from the therapist. As far as we know, he is not having any side effects to medication and is tolerating medications well.
Doc. 76-25 at 1; Doc. 71 at 4. Occu-Med concluded that this letter was also non-responsive to its questions. DSOF 71.
On March 8, Occu-Med called Plaintiff to explain that the physician assistant's recent letter did not address Plaintiff's ability to safely perform essential job functions. DSOF 72. Plaintiff requested a second deadline extension to get proper documentation, which Defendant approved.
See id.; see also Doc. 76-26 at 3-4; Doc. 71 at 4. Accordingly, on March 14, Occu-Med again provided Plaintiff with questions for his healthcare provider:
“1) How long has Mr. Sisco's mental health conditions been stable on his current treatment regimen?” and “2) What period of time should Mr. Sisco's mental health conditions remain stable before he is permitted to begin working as a Construction Crew member (which includes working at heights, with heavy equipment, power tools, etc.)?”
Doc. 71 at 3. Plaintiff requested two additional time extensions, which Defendant granted. Doc. 76-26 at 4-5; Doc. 71 at 4. On March 17, Plaintiff met with his physician assistant, and she wrote on a prescription paper that DSOF 90-91. Occu-Med reviewed the note and concluded that it was not responsive. DSOF 92. So that same day Occu-Med emailed Plaintiff that it still needed the previously requested information and that he had until March 20 to submit the information. DSOF 97. Occu-Med emailed Plaintiff a reminder on March 20. DSOF 102. Plaintiff did not provide any additional information to Occu-Med. DSOF 100.
Consequently, on March 21, Occu-Med reported to Defendant's recruiting supervisor that Plaintiff had not submitted required additional information and that Plaintiff's deadline for submitting that additional information had passed. Doc. 71 at 3-4. Recruiting Supervisor Christopher Sondgeroth worked at Defendant's headquarters in Morton, Illinois, and he did not talk with anyone at the Winfield, Kansas, plant about Plaintiff. DSOF 109-10, 137.[6] Sondgeroth told Occu-Med to suspend its screening, and Defendant revoked Plaintiff's conditional employment offer. Doc. 71 at 4.
Plaintiff later filed a charge via his attorney with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging disability discrimination and retaliation against protected activity. Doc. 90 at DSOF 152-53.[7] This lawsuit followed. DSOF 156-57.
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate that genuine issues remain for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). In applying this standard, courts view the facts and any reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Henderson v. Inter-Chem Coal Co., 41 F.3d 567, 569 (10th Cir. 1994). “An issue of material fact is genuine if a ‘reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Plaintiff asserts three claims against Defendant: (1) terminating his employment due to his disability; (2) subjecting him to an unlawful medical examination; and (3) retaliating against him by terminating his employment after he complained about the unlawful medical examination process. Doc. 71 at 15. The Court turns to the unlawful medical examination claim first because Defendant raises a failure to exhaust administrative remedies affirmative defense.
Plaintiff claims Defendant violated the ADAAA by subjecting Plaintiff to an unlawful medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial