St. Laurent v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 04-11951-JGD.,CIV.A. 04-11951-JGD. |
| Citation | 416 F.Supp.2d 212 |
| Parties | Peter ST. LAURENT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Seth J. Elfin, Keches & Mallen, Taunton, MA, for Peter St. Laurent, Plaintiff.
Hugh F. Murray, III, Murtha Cullina LLP, Boston, MA, for United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant.
The plaintiff Peter St. Laurent ("St.Laurent") is employed by the defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") as a package car driver. He has brought this action alleging that UPS discriminated against him because of an actual or perceived handicap in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B when it refused to allow him to return to work during the period of May 2001 until October 2002, following a back injury. The matter is presently before the court on UPS's motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 15). Because this court finds that the plaintiff was not able to perform the essential elements of his job with or without accommodation, the motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED.
The following facts are stated in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. See Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 257 (1st Cir.1999).
St. Laurent is a 56 year old man, who has been working for UPS as a package car driver since 1974. Package car drivers at UPS are represented by the Teamsters Union, and the terms of employment for package car drivers are governed by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). DF ¶¶ 2, 3.
UPS has a written job description for its drivers, which provides in relevant part as follows:
Overview:
Involves driving a commercial-sized vehicle that uses a standard transmission. Must be able to deliver and pick up packages at a constant pace during a full work shift, working in accordance with prescribed methods and performance standards. Drivers must meet all of the requirements as specified by the D.O.T.
Rossi Aff. Ex. B (emphasis added). In addition, the written job description provides a listing of essential functions, which includes the following:
Essential Functions (must be able to):
— To bend, stoop, crouch, climb, stand, sit, walk and turn/pivot for up to 9.5 hours per day, 5 days per week
— Lift/lower, push, pull and carry up to 70 pounds.
Id. (emphasis added).
St. Laurent agreed at his deposition that this job description is consistent with the work he was expected to perform each day. Def. Ex. A at 26. Specifically, but without limitation, St. Laurent described his job as delivering and picking up packages ranging in weight from an envelope up to 70 pounds without assistance, and 150 pounds with assistance. Id. at 7-8.2 He made approximately 95-110 deliveries and 28 pick-ups each day. Id. at 8. He has had the same route for almost 20 years. Id. at 13. The pick-ups could involve as many 600 boxes from a chocolate factory during the Christmas season. Id. at 8-9. He averaged approximately 230-250 packages for delivery each day. Id. at 12. In a few places he could use a cart to help with deliveries and could unload on a dock. Id. In other places he walked down long driveways and up and down stairs, including deliveries to the second floors of houses. Id. at 17. The newer UPS trucks were built lower to the ground, making it easier to get packages in and out of the truck. See id. at 16. St. Laurent estimated that about half of his time was spent driving, while half was spent lifting. Def. Ex. B at 17.
On November 13, 2000, St. Laurent suffered a back injury when he dropped his keys, leaned over to pick them up, and strained his back. Def. Ex. A at 19. He was out of work until approximately December 10, 2000 as a result of this injury. Id. St. Laurent came back and worked until January 9, 2001, at which time "the pain wouldn't go away" and "it got unbearable to keep working[.]" Id. at 19-20; Pl.Ex. A. He was out of work until January 21, 2001, during which time he received Workers' Compensation benefits.3 Pl.Ex. A St. Laurent then returned to work until March 26, 2001, when his "back kicked in" again and he left work because he "couldn't perform [his] duties." Def. Ex. A at 20. St. Laurent was not doing anything in particular which caused him such pain that he had to leave work, it was just that "every day was aggravating" and "every day [his] back became painful" when he was working as a package car driver. Id. at 20-21. When he left work, St. Laurent again began receiving Worker's Compensation benefits, See Pl.Ex. A.
It is undisputed that on May 22, 2001, St. Laurent was examined by Dr. Isadore Yablon, an orthopedic surgeon, and that the examination was required by either UPS or its Worker's Compensation carrier. See DF ¶¶ 16, 17; PR ¶¶ 16, 17. It is unclear whether this examination was in response to St. Laurent indicating that he was prepared to come back to work, or was motivated by the employer or insurer. Id. This court finds that the discrepancy is not material.4 In any event, Dr. Yablon diagnosed St. Laurent with "Back pain secondary to degenerative arthritis." Pl. Ex. B. His "conclusions" were as follows:
His arthritis may not have been caused by his work but certainly could have been aggravated by it. I believe in this case, Mr. St. Laurent experienced an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. He is capable of returning to work but should be restricted from lifting anything more that 25 pounds. Given this restriction, it is quite possible that the frequency of back pain will be lessened. It is not possible to recommend any plan of treatment or work conditions where it could be assured that he would not suffer any recurrence of back pain because of his spinal arthritis.
Pl.Ex. B (emphasis added). While the report is dated May 22, 2001, it is unclear when it was received by UPS.
On May 25, 2001, St. Laurent apparently went to his own doctor, Dr. Greiner, who had been treating him for lumbar strain. Pl.Ex. C. This Doctor found him to be excused from work during the period April 20, 2001 through May 28, 2001, and able to return to work on May 29, 2001.5 Id. There is no description in this report at all, and no discussion as to St. Laurent's weight-lifting capabilities.
Again, the chronology of events is unclear. However, according to St. Laurent, when he came to work with Dr. Greiner's note, his supervisor, Tom McGovern, would not let him return until the company received the report from Dr. Yablon. See Pl.Ex. D (St. Laurent Affidavit) at ¶ 3. St. Laurent went home. He returned to work again two weeks later, in mid June 2001, and in an affidavit filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment he describes the events that occurred as follows:
Approximately two weeks later, mid June 2001, I went to see Tom McGovern to find out when I could return to full duty work per the clearance of my doctor. He told me that I was not able to return because I had a lifting restriction per UPS's doctor. While I do not remember my exact quote, I specifically told Tom McGovern that if he is claiming that I cannot lift, then give me a job that does not require lifting, and he could even send me to feeder school. One month later, I followed-up with Tom McGovern about my request for alternate work, specifically feeder school, and he told me that was not an option.
Pl.Ex. D at ¶¶ 4, 5 (emphasis added). At his earlier deposition, however, St. Laurent had testified as follows:
Q. Now, during the time period between March 26, 2001, and October 11, 2002, did you request any type of accommodation so that you could return to work?
A. No.
Def. Ex. B at 6. He testified further as follows:
Q. You testified earlier that you did not request an accommodation. Now, during your conversation with Tom McGovern, did you make any suggestions as to what other positions you could perform?
A. No, my conversation with him was just I wanted my job back.
. . . . .
Q. Did you tell Mr. McGovern if they were not willing to give you your job back, you would do whatever work they had available?
A. I don't recall.
Id. at 16, 19. St. Laurent contends that this refusal to allow him to return to work was discriminatory and in sharp contrast to UPS's decision in 1996 when, after a work-related injury, it offered him a lightduty position. See id. at 18.
It is undisputed that on July 30, 2001, UPS provided St. Laurent a list of three doctors, and asked him to select one to conduct an impartial examination. See Def. Ex. D. St. Laurent contends that he selected one doctor, but was told, about five weeks later and without explanation, that he had to choose one of the other two, which he refused to do. Def. Ex. A at 27. It is further undisputed that on September 12, 2001, UPS sent St. Laurent another list of three orthopedic doctors, and asked him to choose one to conduct an impartial examination. Def. Ex. D. St. Laurent selected Dr. Nason Burden, who St. Laurent had known since he was a child. Def. Ex. A at 28. St. Laurent was examined by Dr. Burden on October 12, 2001. See Def. Ex. E.
UPS contends that the selection of a doctor was done in accordance with the CBA, which provides that if the employee's and employer's doctors disagree about an employee's ability to return to work, "the Employer and the Union shall mutually agree upon a third (3rd) doctor within (10) working days, whose decision shall be final and binding on the Employer, the Union and the employee." Rossi Aff. Ex. A at Art. 20, § 3. While St. Laurent admits that the steps as described above were taken, he denies that it was done in accordance with the CBA. See DF ¶¶ 19-20, PR ¶¶ 19-20. Moreover, St....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Walgreen Co.
...of] disability.’ ” Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., 460 F.3d 141, 145 (1st Cir.2006)(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). See also St. Laurent v. UPS, 416 F.Supp.2d 212, 222 (D.Mass.2006) (employer properly dismissed employee whose medical restrictions prevented him from performing all essential functions......
-
Gauthier v. Sunhealth Specialty Services, Inc.
...Bedford v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 440 Mass. 450, 461-462, 799 N.E.2d 578 (2003); St. Laurent v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 416 F.Supp.2d 212, 220 (D.Mass.2006). Under ch. 151 B, an individual has a "handicap" if he or she (1) has a substantial impairment that substan......