Wiseman v. Convention Ctr. Auth. of the Metro. Gov't of Nashville
| Decision Date | 05 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | 3:14 C 01911 |
| Parties | JEANETTE H. WISEMAN, Plaintiff, v. THE CONVENTION CENTER AUTHORITY OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, also known as Music City Center, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jeanette Wiseman filed this lawsuit against her former employer, the Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Defendant"). In her complaint, Wiseman alleges that Defendant discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of her age, sex, and disability. Presently before us is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 19.) For the reasons set forth below, we hereby grant Defendant's motion.
Defendant operates two convention centers in downtown Nashville: (1) the older, smaller Nashville Convention Center ("NCC"); and (2) the newer and significantly larger Music City Center ("MCC"). (SUMF ¶¶ 1-2.) In March of 2013, Wiseman applied for a position as asecurity officer for Defendant. (Id. ¶ 4.) Erin Hampton, Richard Wagner, and Elisa Putman interviewed Wiseman at a job fair, at which time Wiseman indicated that she was available to work any schedule as needed by Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) Shortly thereafter, effective April 1, 2013, Defendant hired Wiseman as a Security and Parking Officer to work at the NCC and MCC (once it opened). (Id. ¶ 6.) At the time she was hired, Wiseman was 59 years old. (Id. ¶ 51.)
During her employment with Defendant, Wiseman was supervised by Nicholas Fleming, Security and Parking Manager, and Richard Wagner, Director of Security and Parking. (Id. ¶ 13.) Typically Wiseman worked the third shift, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., but she occasionally worked the second shift. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) The job duties for the shifts are essentially identical, although the third shift has less activity. (Id. ¶ 61.) She worked shifts at both the NCC and MCC throughout her tenure with Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16, 22, 77.)
The job description for the Security and Parking Officer position states that the job's two primary duties are "loss prevention" and "ensuring safety [and] security of all patrons and staff." The description also indicates that the position requires "typically standing or walking" as well as "intermittently sitting/standing/walking." (SUMF ¶ 8; Job Description (summarizing the physical effort needed for the position).)
In her deposition, Wiseman described her primary duties at the NCC as: "roving the building, monitoring established checkpoints, checking exterior doors to ensure they were secure, watching for transient persons or others who did not belong in the building, checking contract employees in and out of the building, unlocking building doors as needed, andmonitoring the unloading and loading of vendors." (SUMF ¶ 15; Wiseman Dep. at 40-42.) Wiseman similarly testified as to her duties when working at the MCC, where she had: "to rove the entire facility, both exterior and interior, lock meeting rooms and ensure they were clear, watch surveillance camera monitors, and check employees, vendors, and contractors in and out of the building." (SUMF ¶ 17; Wiseman Dep. at 43-44.) She stated that the "roving" duty required Security and Parking Officers to traverse the entirety of the two facilities, inside and out.2 (SUMF ¶ 18.) Wiseman also testified that she had to walk stairs during each shift. (Id. ¶ 19.)
Wiseman's testimony as to her job responsibilities is consistent with the MCC operating procedures submitted by Defendant. (See SUMF ¶¶ 10-12.) The MCC operating procedures manuals describe the security officers' duties for conducting inside rounds, outside rounds, and perimeter security. (Id.) Specific duties include reporting crowd flow or housekeeping problems, ensuring that unused areas are locked, and checking "all stairwells and service corridors." (Id. ¶ 10.) Additional tasks include, inter alia, stopping and pulling on exterior doors, remaining alert to any hazards to the public, and monitoring landscaping, as well as checking emergency exits, storage and mechanical rooms, janitorial closets, and other spaces. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.)
Shortly after she began working for Defendant on April 1, 2013, Wiseman began seeking medical treatment for certain medical conditions. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 9, 24-25.) On April 18, 2013, Wiseman visited the Faith Family Medical Clinic ("Clinic") and asked the staff to send a letter toDefendant requesting a modified workload. (Id. ¶ 24.) Clinic staff then emailed a letter, dated April 19, 2013, to Fleming, informing Defendant that Wiseman had been diagnosed with arthritis in both knees. The letter also stated that Wiseman should be "restricted to light duty while at work, specifically limiting stair climbing and long periods of walking until further notice." (Id. ¶¶ 24-26; 4/19/13 Carolyn Pratt Ltr. to Fleming (Dkt. No. 23-8).) In response, on April 30, 2013, Hampton wrote the Clinic for clarification about Wiseman's restrictions. (SUMF ¶ 27; 4/30/13 Hampton Ltr. to Clinic (Dkt. No. 23-9).)
On May 3, 2013, Fleming and Wagner met with Wiseman to discuss the Clinic's April 19 letter and her requested accommodations. (SUMF ¶ 28.) In the meeting, Wiseman acknowledged that she had been avoiding using the stairs while making her rounds at the MCC and would prefer to use the elevators as an accommodation. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29; see 5/3/13 Wagner Email to Hampton (summarizing meeting with Wiseman) (Dkt. No. 23-10).) According to Wagner's summary of the meeting, Wiseman agreed that a security officer at the MCC would be required—as an essential job function—to perform walkthroughs of the garage and stairwells.3 (SUMF ¶ 30; 5/3/13 Wagner Email to Hampton.)
On May 16, 2013, the Clinic responded to Hampton's April 30 request for additional information about Wiseman's restrictions. (SUMF ¶ 31; 5/16/13 Pratt Fax to Hampton (Dkt. No. 23-11).) The Clinic informed Hampton that Wiseman should have "limited stair climbing" for one month. (SUMF ¶ 31; 5/16/13 Pratt Fax to Hampton.)
Several weeks later, Wiseman saw Dr. Henderson at the Clinic and was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis. (SUMF ¶ 32.) Dr. Henderson prescribed some medication, offered guidance,and told Wiseman to take the night off work, but he did not suggest any work restrictions as a result of his diagnosis.4 (Id.; see 6/13/13 Henderson Quick Note (Dkt. No. 23-12).)
As of June 16, 2013, Wiseman's one-month light-duty period expired. Wagner asked Wiseman about the status of her restrictions, and she stated that she would follow up with the Clinic about her condition. (SUMF ¶ 33; Wiseman Dep. at 151-52.) Having not heard from Wiseman, Defendant contacted the Clinic by letter dated July 1, 2013 to inquire whether Wiseman's restrictions continued. (SUMF ¶¶ 34-35; see 7/1/13 Hampton Ltr. to Pratt (Dkt. No. 23-13).) In response, on July 3, 2013, the Clinic extended Wiseman's light-duty restriction for an additional six weeks, until Wiseman could consult an orthopedic specialist. (SUMF ¶ 36; see 7/3/13 Davis Ltr. to Wiseman (Dkt. No. 23-14).)
Soon thereafter, Wiseman met with Hampton, Wagner, and Putman to discuss the extended restrictions. (SUMF ¶ 37.) Defendant then issued a letter, dated July 19, 2013, which reiterated that one of her job duties is "the observation and documentation of all areas of the exterior and interior of the facility including stairwells." (SUMF ¶ 38; 7/19/13 Ltr. to Wiseman (Dkt. No. 23-15).) In the letter, Defendant offered three accommodations to meet Wiseman's limitations, including: (1) reduction in the amount of walking and checking of stairs during the initial four-hour roving period; (2) use of the Segway and/or Mule, as well as any necessary training on use of the Segway; and (3) assistance finding the most efficient route for rounds to reduce the total time spent walking and climbing. (SUMF ¶ 38; 7/19/13 Ltr. to Wiseman.) Wiseman and Wagner signed the letter on July 25, 2013. (SUMF ¶ 39.)
Wisemen saw Dr. Johnson, an orthopedic specialist, on July 24, 2013, and he found that she was still suffering from plantar fasciitis. (Id. ¶ 40; Wiseman Dep. at 173-74.) He kept her off work that day but did not impose any work restrictions. (SUMF ¶ 40; Wiseman Dep. at 173-74; 7/24/13 Johnson Note (Dkt. No. 23-16).) After this appointment, Wiseman changed providers and began seeing Dr. Embree, a podiatrist, and then went to Roberson County Spine & Injury Center ("RCSIC"). (SUMF ¶ 41; Wiseman Dep. at 174.)
By August 30, 2013, Wiseman's extended period of light-duty restriction had expired, an issue that Wagner raised with her. (SUMF ¶ 42.) Wiseman advised Wagner that she was meeting with a new medical provider. (Id. ¶ 43; see 8/30/13 Wagner Email to Hampton (Dkt. No. 23-17).) That same day, Dr. Jackson with RCSIC placed Wiseman on light duty through October 1, 2013. (SUMF ¶ 44.) He specifically noted that Wiseman should, if possible, receive Segway training, take adequate rest breaks, and limit her use of stairs. (Id.; see 8/30/13 Jackson Work Excuse/Return to Work Limitations (Dkt. No. 23-18).)
On September 9, 2013, during a meeting with Wagner and Hampton, Defendant terminated Wiseman's employment. (SUMF ¶ 47; see 9/9/13 Hampton Ltr. to Wiseman (Dkt. No. 23-6).) Defendant informed Wiseman that she was being fired "due to continued issues with inability to perform the essential functions of the Security and Parking Officer [] position without accommodation." (9/9/13 Hampton Ltr. to Wiseman; see also Hampton Decl. ¶ 14 ( Defendant's rationale).) Wiseman also met the following day with Charles Starks, the President and CEO of the MCC. (SUMF ¶ 48.) He...
To continue reading
Request your trial