Thompson v. Flint Township Police Department

Filing 21

OPINION and ORDER Granting 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ETHAN THOMPSON,
Case No. 17-12065

Plaintiff,

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.
FLINT TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S NOVEMBER 15, 2017 MOTION
This matter came before the court on defendant Flint Township Police
Department’s November 15, 2017 Motion to Dismiss/For Judgment on the Pleadings
and Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Ethan Thompson filed a response
December 6, 2017; and Defendant filed a reply brief December 19, 2017. Pursuant
to Local Rule 7.1(f)(1), no oral argument was heard.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff Ethan Thompson began his employment as a police officer with
defendant Flint Township Police Department (“FTPD”) January 11, 2016. He started
his field training along side Officer Piercey on January 17, 2016, who subsequently
reported that he observed Plaintiff having difficulties correctly reading license plate

information, street signs, and house number signs. Piercey also observed that Plaintiff
had to position his face within eight to ten inches of the squad car’s computer screen
to read the information displayed. After learning of Plaintiff’s apparent vision
impairment, defendant FTPD contacted the Michigan Commission on Law
Enforcement Standards (“MCOLES”) to have Plaintiff’s vision examined.
An ophthalmologist examined Plaintiff’s vision and determined that his best
corrected vision in his right eye was 20/30. The physician checked the “No” boxes
under the Vision Section of Plaintiff’s MCOLES Physician’s Statement of Applicant’s
Medical Condition.
After receiving the Statement, the FTPD advised Plaintiff that he did not meet
the MCOLES standard for vision and that his MCOLES license could no longer be
active. Days later Plaintiff submitted his letter of resignation in which he stated that
he was resigning effective immediately, “Due to the fact that my vision is 20/30 in my
right eye.” Def.’s Ex. C. Shortly thereafter, MCOLES changed Plaintiff’s license
status from Active to Inactive, thereby rendering Plaintiff ineligible to obtain
employment as a police officer with any department in the state of Michigan.
Plaintiff Thompson filed the instant lawsuit claiming the defendant police
department discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”).
2

LAW AND ANALYSIS
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, “a plaintiff
must show that he or she (1) is disabled; (2) otherwise qualified to perform the
essential functions of the position, with or without accommodation; and (3) suffered
an adverse employment action because of his or her disability.” Ferrari v. Ford Motor
Co., 826 F.3d 885 (6th Cir. 2016). The only issue in this case is whether Plaintiff was
“otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the position with or without
accommodation.”
MCOLES is the sole licensing authority for police officers in the state of
Michigan. One who is denied a license form MCOLES “shall not exercise the law
enforcement authority described in the laws of this state under which the individual
is employed.” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.609(7). The vision requirements for
MCOLES are found at Mich. Admin. Code, R 28.14204, and specifically require both
far and near visual acuity in each eye, corrected or uncorrected, of 20/20 or better.
MCOLES has exclusive authority to “establish specific tests, procedures, and
qualifications for use in determining compliance with the medical standards in R
28.14204 (a) to (e).” To activate a police officer’s MCOLES license, police agencies
are required to submit proof of compliance with the pre-employment requirements in
R 28.14206, which include a medical examination.
3

As a matter of law, a legally-defined job qualification, as required by MCOLES
in this case, is an “essential function” of the job. Brickers v. Cleveland Bd. Of Educ.,
145 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 1998). The United States Supreme Court has held that an
employer who requires that an employee meet a federal safety regulation vision
standard does not violate the ADA. Alberston’s Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555
(1999).
This is not a case where an accommodation would allow defendant FTPD to
employ plaintiff Thompson as a police officer, as the MCOLES standards are
minimum standards. Therefore, there can be no argument whether Plaintiff is able to
perform the job given his disqualifying vision. Moreover, the Brickers court held, “a
legally-defined job qualification is by its very nature an essential function under §
12111(8), irrespective of whether the employer adheres to that requirement in all
cases.” Brickers, at 850 (emphasis added). Indeed, in this case the court finds that
defendant FTPD’s employing plaintiff Thompson would expose the police department
to significant liability. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

4

ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that defendant Flint Township Police Department’s
November 15, 2017 motion is GRANTED in its entirety.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: February 21, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel
of record on this date, February 21, 2018, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

5