In an unpublished decision Nazario v. City of Riverside, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss a discharged Riverside PD officer’s Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) claims, denying him a trial, because he could not show he was fired and not rehired because of his military service.
In Bridgeforth v. Jewell, the court granted the United States Park Service, summary judgment because police officer Wayne Bridgeforth’s claims of retaliation were too speculative for trial. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence linking the denial of Bridgeforth’s time off award with his “protected activity” of having filed a discrimination claim.
A District of Columbia federal court dismissed a Capitol Police Officer’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims in Gordon v. U.S. Capitol Police, 20 WH Cases2d 453 (D.D.C. 2013), when she could provide no evidence that her employer denied her FMLA benefits (interference) and no evidence that she experienced and adverse employment action because of her use of her FMLA rights (retaliation). Despite an angry supervisor’s response to her request, the court found insufficient evidence of an “adverse action.”
In Lee v. District of Columbia, 27 AD Cases 895 (D.D.C. 2013), a District of Columbia Federal District Court found that a diabetic corrections worker had valid claim under the ADA when he was fired for falling asleep on the job, but had been denied a regular meal break and therefore could not manage the symptoms of the disease. These symptoms included dizziness, fainting or sudden fatigue resulting in falling asleep. The court found that because an employer accommodation was necessary for Lee to be able to perform the essential functions of the job, he was in fact disabled in the meaning of the ADA.
In Moore v. Maryland Dep’t of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 27 AD Cases 849 (D. Md. 2013), a Maryland Federal District Court found no claim could be made under the ADA when Arlene Moore, a corrections officer recovering from breast cancer, was terminated following an extended period of sick leave and there was no indication that she would be able to return to work. The Officer had 8 months of leave and her doctor indicated that she either “would” or “might” be able to return after an additional 7 months of leave. The court concluded that this prolonged leave especially in the absence of a certain return date was not a reasonable accommodation.
In Benavides v. Oklahoma City, 20 WH Cases 2d 331 (10th Cir. 2013), the Court upheld summary judgment on ADA and FMLA claims by a former detective when there was no retaliatory action, the employer suitably responded to alleged harassment, the paid administrative leave was standard for an employee being investigated for a crime, the paid leave did not adversely affect the plaintiff, and there was no showing that the City’s reason was pretextual. The court had little trouble in affirming the lower court’s granting of summary judgment as the plaintiff had utterly failed in indicating any violation of either the ADA or FMLA had occurred.
In Horne v. City of Detroit, 27 AD Cases 1518 (2013), the court dismissed a former Detroit police officer’s ADA claim and granted summary judgment for the City of Detroit. The court concluded that the City lawfully terminated Horne after he plead guilty to four counts stemming from him firing eight rounds from an AR-15 into the home of his wife’s lover.
In Bennett v. Dallas Independent School District, 3:11-cv-00393-D (2013), the court granted summary judgment to the Dallas Independent School District (“DISD”) and dismissed Bennett’s claims under the ADA and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) when Bennett refused to take a psychological exam following a disability related reassignment, and then stopped showing up for work entirely without providing any notice.
The District Court in Crowell v. Denver Health, (2013) allowed a discharged Colorado paramedic dispatcher’s FMLA and ADA claims to go to trial on cross motions but dismissed her claim for retaliation when the employees’ absences place her in violation of the employer’s “Excessive Absenteeism” policy.
In Maresca v. City of New York, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the enforcement of NYFD’s zero-tolerance policy for drugs was not a pretext to discharge New York Firefighter Maresca because of his post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). The 2nd Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City when Maresca tested positive for cocaine and he was fired soon after and solely because of the test results. Even though Maresca established the prima facie case because he was a sufferer of PTSD, his employer knew he had PTSD, and he was fired, the court found that the employer successfully rebutted the argument.
