Takeaway: A legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination supported by a company investigation, often conducted while an employee is on administrative leave, can help an employer defend itself from discrimination and retaliation claims.
A fire department employee who claimed discrimination and retaliation could not prove wrongful discharge when he was fired after going to City Hall and asking for copies of documents for his complaint to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The city claimed that the employee appeared intoxicated and threatened the city secretary, which the employee denied. Nevertheless, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of his claims.
The plaintiff was a Huntsville, Texas, firefighter who had undergone gall bladder surgery almost a decade prior. The surgery did not go well, and ever since, the employee has needed medication and treatment for complications. Both the city and its fire department had accommodated him.
But in 2016, the city caught the plaintiff asking a fellow employee for his leftover prescription painkillers. Because such a request violated city policy, the city of Huntsville placed the plaintiff on probation and warned that future violations could lead to termination.
In January 2018, the plaintiff submitted and then rescinded a letter of resignation. The fire department accepted him back, but passed him over for open officer positions and declined to reinstate him to a trainer position he previously held. The plaintiff met with city employees in November 2018 and accused the city of discriminating and retaliating against him based on his age and disability by not selecting him as an officer and by removing him as a trainer. In February 2019, the plaintiff told the city that he was going to complain to the EEOC.
A month later, the employee went to Huntsville City Hall to make copies for his EEOC complaint. According to the city, employees immediately suspected that the plaintiff was intoxicated. Employees reported that the plaintiff slurred his words, was partially incoherent and seemed unlike himself.
Despite that, the city secretary helped the plaintiff make his copies. But according to her, the plaintiff boxed her in and blocked the copy room exit, stating, “When all of this comes out, they’re going to be sorry that they messed with me.” The secretary, feeling threatened, escaped past the plaintiff and ran to hide in the women’s bathroom nearby.
According to the plaintiff, he was suffering from sleep deprivation and hypoglycemia on the day in question. When he went to the copy room with the city secretary, he did not box her in, but rather stood patiently and waited for his copies, he said. He claimed that the comment that the secretary took as threatening was directed at the city with regard to his lawsuit, not to the secretary in particular.
The plaintiff eventually went to the city manager’s office with several city officials. While there, officials repeatedly asked to drug test him, which he declined to allow. Officials refused to let the plaintiff drive himself home and finally let him go only when his wife eventually arrived.
The city placed the plaintiff on administrative leave and investigated. Two weeks later, it fired him because there was a high probability that he was impaired at City Hall, his conduct harmed the city’s reputation, and he was disrespectful to and scared the city secretary.
The plaintiff sued, claiming retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and discrimination under the ADA. Although the plaintiff requested a continuance to obtain more discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the city on all claims. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit found that the plaintiff had stated a “prima facie” case of retaliation. However, the city had presented legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the plaintiff’s termination. The court reviewed video footage of the incident at City Hall, and while it did not prove that the plaintiff was intoxicated, it did support the concerns raised by the city. The court thus found that the plaintiff failed to identify any genuine issues of material fact in support of his claims.
A dissenting judge, however, believed that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to call into question the dismissal of his retaliation claim. The judge argued that the plaintiff’s stated intention of copying documents for his EEOC charge, along with the inconclusiveness of the evidence of intoxication, adequately established the plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
Nonetheless, the 5th Circuit upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims at summary judgment.
January v. City of Huntsville, 5th Cir., No. 22-20380 (July 24, 2023), petition for rehearing denied (Aug. 22, 2023).
Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.
