Williams v. Avnet, Inc., 5:95-CV-108-BO(1).

• Decision Date: 07 December 1995
• Docket Number: No. 5:95-CV-108-BO(1).,5:95-CV-108-BO(1).
• Citation: 910 F. Supp. 1124
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: Linda WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. AVNET, INC., Channel Master Communications, Inc., and Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc., Defendants.

910 F. Supp. 1124

Linda WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. AVNET, INC., Channel Master Communications, Inc., and Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc., Defendants.

No. 5:95-CV-108-BO(1).

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division.

December 7, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Burton Craige, Patterson, Harkavy & Lawrence, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff.

Martin N. Erwin, Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, Greensboro, NC, for Defendants.

ORDER

TERRENCE WILLIAM BOYLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff brought this action, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the North Carolina Handicapped Persons Protection Act ("NCHPPA"), as well as wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Court now allows defendant's motion for summary judgment for the reasons outlined below.¹

* * *

Summary judgment shall be granted when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, and (2) the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 56(c). The party bearing the burden of proof on an issue at trial must "designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (citation omitted). Factual disputes whose resolution would not affect the outcome of the suit are irrelevant to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Ms. Williams began her employment at Avnet's Smithfield, North Carolina, facility on February 18, 1983. Initially hired as a riveter, plaintiff was promoted over the years into other positions. Her last position at Avnet was one of manual punch press operator, a job that requires heavy pushing, lifting, and loading in the operation of a machine that fashions metal rods into antenna parts. The job requires frequent bending at the waist in order to pick up incoming rods and place them in the machine, and to remove completed rods from the machine's hopper. Completed rods must then be placed on a rack, or in barrels on this rack, and the full, heavy rack must then be pushed (usually by two machine operators) to another area on the shop floor. This job cannot be performed from a sitting position.

On March 26, 1992, plaintiff suffered severe injuries in an automobile accident unrelated to her job. Following unsuccessful chiropractic treatment, plaintiff sought help from Dr. Tejpal Singh Dhillon, an orthopaedic surgeon. On April 16, 1992, Dr. Dhillon provided plaintiff a note for plaintiff to present defendant, indicating that she would miss work for three weeks. On May 6, 1992, another note was issued, stating plaintiff would miss an additional month. On June 3, 1992, another note indicated plaintiff would need to miss another three weeks, and another note, on June 26, 1992, extended this period by another month. On July 17, 1992, a note explained that three more weeks were required, and four more weeks were required by a note on August 7, 1992.

On September 4, 1992, Dr. Dhillon issued a note stating plaintiff could return to work four days later, but with the following restriction: "Avoid lifting over 25 lbs. of weight—heavy pushing and pulling." On the same day, in connection with unrelated litigation arising from the automobile accident, Dr. Dhillon assigned the plaintiff a disability rating of 5% permanent partial disability of the back. However, Avnet was not informed of Dr. Dhillon's conclusion that plaintiff's injuries were permanent. The record also demonstrates that plaintiff herself did not know that her injury would be permanent until after she had been released by Avnet.

In September, 1992, defendant received another note from Dr. Dhillon, dated September 10, 1992, stating plaintiff could return to work on October 5, 1992. This note did not indicate any restrictions. However, when plaintiff met with Avnet's personnel coordinator on October 2, 1992, she presented yet another note from Dr. Dhillon, dated the previous day, which re-stated the twenty-five pound limitation on lifting as a medical restriction. The parties dispute what was said at the meeting, but there is no dispute that plaintiff was removed from the payroll immediately after the meeting.

Avnet has a policy of granting employees disabled by non-occupational injuries a medical leave of absence of up to six months, providing such employees are able to return to work without restrictions. If the disability turns out to be a permanent one, the company attempts to accommodate the employee by finding another position within the company that would not violate the medical restrictions. Avnet released plaintiff pursuant to this policy, on the grounds that she could not return to her former position without restrictions, and that no positions for which plaintiff was qualified, given her disability, were available.

Plaintiff maintains that she can perform her job at Avnet if she is provided a "towmo," or forklift, with which to move the heavy racks and barrels. Plaintiff's supervisor informed her that arranging for a forklift and operator would be prohibitively expensive on a short term basis, if not physically impossible. The plant's Human Resources Manager testified that in order to give Ms. Williams a forklift, the entire production line, including approximately twelve machines, would have to be re-organized, and that even with this substantial re-arrangement, it is unlikely that there would be room to use an additional forklift.

The Americans with Disabilities Act

"In order to establish a violation of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the employment or benefit in question; and (3) that he was excluded from the employment or benefit due to discrimination solely on the basis of the disability." Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 50 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir.1995).

I.

Plaintiff has suggested that Avnet's medical leave and disability policy constitutes an illegal discriminatory practice. This Court does not agree.

"An individual is not otherwise qualified if he poses a significant risk to the health or safety of others by virtue of the disability that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation." Doe, 50 F.3d at 1265; 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(3), 12113(a)-(b); see also School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987) (contagious disease may disqualify person from employment). Because the safety demands of some jobs require unrestricted performance abilities, an employer's policy barring an employee from returning to work after a medical leave unless that employee is free of all restrictions can never be a per se violation of the ADA.

In many cases, it might well be negligent not to adopt such a policy where the job's performance could pose a danger to the worker and to others if not executed by a fully capable individual. See Reigel v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of N.C., 859 F.Supp. 963, 974 (E.D.N.C.1994) (ADA cannot punish medical group for firing disabled doctor where plaintiff "cannot safely and properly perform the duties required of that position"); Doe, supra (same: HIV-positive surgeon may be barred from operating on patients despite estimated small risk); Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278 (4th Cir.1995) (ADA cannot punish county for firing bus driver who failed health requirements due to uncontrolled diabetes and a severe heart condition).

Safety concerns aside, medical restrictions may still be considered by an employer in deciding whether or not to reinstate an employee returning from disability leave. The concept of "returning to" something, such as a job, embodies the idea that one will resume the status quo ante, and henceforth be at the exact same location, or do or experience the exact same thing. If one attempts to "return," but is encumbered by medical restrictions, a presumption arises that one is not capable of "returning" in the full and honest sense of the word. Medical restrictions are thus highly relevant to the question of whether an employee has a colorable claim under the ADA.

II.

Absent direct evidence of discrimination, plaintiffs under the ADA must prove their case under the inferential proof scheme of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Ennis v. National Ass'n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55 (4th Cir.1995). Because plaintiff has not introduced direct evidence of discrimination, the McDonnell Douglas scheme must be applied.

The familiar inferential-proof frame-work requires that plaintiff first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. "While the burden is `not onerous,' it is also not empty or perfunctory. Plaintiff's evidence must be such that, if the trier of fact finds it credible, and the employer remains silent, the plaintiff would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ennis, 53 F.3d at 59 (citation omitted).

If plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a valid reason for dismissal which, if believed, would establish that discrimination was not the motive for the defendant's action. This burden of defendant's is one of production, and does not operate to relieve discrimination plaintiffs of their ultimate burden of proof. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 456 n. 2 (4th Cir.1989). "If the defendant meets this burden of production, the presumption created by the prima facie case `drops out of the picture,' and the plaintiff bears the...