Delaval v. PTech Drilling Tubulars, LLC

Filing 20

Opinion on Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4)

UNffiD STATES DISTRICT COURT

Danny]. Delaval,
Plaintiff,

'Versus
PTech Drilling T ubulars, LLC,
Defendant.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Opinion on Summary Judgment
1.

Background.
Danny Delaval began working in Conroe, Texas, for HDD Rotary as a manual machinist

in the summer of 2009. In 2012., it became PTech Drilling T ubulars, LLC.
Delaval was promoted to computer-numeric control operator, then to machinist
supervisor, then to shop manager in 20 I 3 , receiving a substantial raise. Between February and
December of 2013, Delaval was reprimanded five times - twice for insubordination, twice for
safety violations, and once for improper tool storage.
In January of 2014, immediately after his fifth reprimand, Delaval was demoted to
inspector-machinist. PTech created that position specifically for him. Although his pay was
lowered, the company says that it created the position so that he would "move laterally" and
have a chance to correct himself. Delaval was replaced as shop manager by Chris Trimble who
is 30 years his junior.
In late February of 2014, Delaval got sick. He started seeing a doctor on May 3rd. He
reported his illness to the company's owner, Murray Dallas, who asked only that Delaval keep
the company informed. Delaval was absent from work from March 18th to the 24th. He did not
call or otherwise tell PTech where he was. Delaval reported to work on March 25th. PTech
fired him on March 27th.

2.

Disabilil)'.
To show discrimination, Delaval must have facts from which a jury may conclude that:

(a) he has a disability; (b) he was qualified for the job; and (c) he suffered a material, adverseemployment decision because of his disability. Delaval cannot show that he is disabled.
I

Assuming he were disabled, he has no facts to show that he was terminated because of his
disability.

A.

Disabilil)'.

In April of 2014, Delaval's doctor diagnosed him with chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, morbid obesity, and obstructive sleep apnea. This record is the only medical document
that Delaval has furnished. Delaval says that from January 2014 until being fired he had paindebilitating sometimes - difficulty breathing and standing, occasional inability to eat, and
occasional inability to sleep because the pain. Delaval's condition remains incompletely
diagnosed.
Though he has suffered from impairments, Delaval has not shown that he is disabled.
Disability requires that he have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities. 2 Delaval was able to function normally. He was able to maintain
himself - eat, sleep, drive, walk, bathe, dress, and work. Sleepless nights and pains not
connected to an impairing consequence are not debilitating.
Aside from an incomplete diagnosis, Delaval has nothing to show that he sought
treatment or care for his conditions. He has no evidence of having been to see a doctor, tests,
or treatments. If Delaval were disabled he would have sought help.

B.

Adverse Decision.

PTech says that it fired Delaval because he was absent from work for a week without
reporting. Even if Delaval were disabled, he has conceded PTech's explanation because he has
not explained his absence. Even if he could, he did not report it to PTecho
Though Delaval e-mailed the company on March 18th about some test results, he did
not say that tests were done that day. He also did not mention that he would be gone for the
next week, let alone that his absence was necessitated by medical testing.

I

EEOC v. LHC Group, Inc., 773 F.3d 688,697 (5th Cir. 2014).

2

Americans with Disabilities Act §I2101 (b).
-2-

Since March 27, 2014, Delaval has not produced a doctor's note or report specifying
the tests he took or his condition during his absence; he has not shown that he was unable to
work, much less report.

C.

Accomodation.

A company is not required to accommodate a person without a disability. Because
Delaval is not disabled, the company was not obliged to accommodate him.
Assuming Delaval were disabled, he never requested a particular accommodation.
Delaval simply never asked the company for an arrangement to accommodate his impairments.
Delaval did send the company's owner an e-mail about his diagnosis. Dallas responded
that Delaval should take the tests that he needed and that he should "keep [ the company]
informed as to what needs to be done." This is not an accommodation. It also is not an open
invitation to be absent without leave. What is more, Delaval never requested that he be given
unbounded leave. Assuming he were to have asked, it would not have been a reasonable
accommodation.
A company is entitled to some responsibility from its employees to operate. Because
Delaval failed to notify his employer for an entire week of non-emergency doctor visits, he
demonstrated none.

3.

Age.
To show age discrimination, an employee must show that (a) he was discharged; (b)

he was qualified for the position; (c) he was within the protected class at the time of discharge;
and (d) he was either (I) replaced by someone outside the protected class, (2) replaced by
someone younger, or (3) otherwise discharged because of age. 3 Delaval says that PTech
demoted and fired him because of his age. He can show neither.

A.

Replacement.

Delaval's position was one created specifically for him. The position has not been filled
since his termination. He was not replaced, let alone replaced by someone younger.

3

Rachid v.Jack In The Box, Inc., 376 F'3d 305,309 (5th Cir. 2004).
-y

B.

Reason.

Delaval worked at PTech for five years. He was incrementally older each day. After
working for four years, he was promoted. One year later after five reprimands, he was demoted.
He was fired several months later after being absent without leave for more than one week.
Delaval had a long history at PTecho He did not suddenly become old during his last
ten months at PTecho He did, however, suddenly become an employee with disciplinary
problems.

C.

Pretext.

Delaval says that PTech' s reason for firing him is a pretense for age discrimination.

It is improbable that the company - and the same people at the company - would
promote Delaval only to demote and fire him one year later because he was old. If it did not like
old people, the company would never have promoted Delaval in the first place. He has to show
that, after or during his promotions, his superiors developed a discriminatory animus based on
age.
To show this newfound animus, Delaval says that people called him "old man." That
is a casual, non-hostile label often used on the job. Delaval has nothing to show that in referring
to him as "old man" his coworkers were deriding him. He never reported them, asked that they
stop, or something similar.
Delaval says that, after being demoted, his employer asked him to do "helper work,"
including mowing the lawn and painting - that the work was demeaning. Work is work.
Delaval's employer pays him to show up and do what is asked of him, whether that be machine
inspection or mowing the lawn.
Delaval says that the reprimands he received before his demotion were "concocted"
against him - the result of discrimination. He specifically objects only to the one in October,
saying that he was on vacation when it was issued. Because he was gone when it was issued,
Delaval says that the charge was obviously contrived. He says that the others should be
dismissed for the same reason.
The October reprimand was for a "policy violation." Specifically, he did not store tools
before leaving. Delaval' s being on vacation does not preclude his irresponsibility. Axiomatically,
you cannot store or return tools you are using while at work. Leaving out expensive equipment
and not returning them requires that you have left work or stopped working on the task which
required the tools. Delaval gives no fact from which a reasonable person might conclude that

·

.
his reprimand was related to his age. He cannot show that the October reprimand - let alone
the four others - was a pretext for age discrimination.

4.

Conclusion.
Delaval sued PTech saying that it discriminated against him because of his disability and

age. He has not shown that PTech fired him for anything other than his having been a poor
employee in his last year at PTecho He will take nothing from PTecho
Signed on August ~,

20r 5,

at Houston, Texas.

~ ~~---------------~~
.
"

Lynn N. Hughes
United States DistrictJudge