Young v. Veolia of North America et al
Filing
33
OPINION on Summary Judgment. Young is not disabled and violated a strict company policy. He will take nothing from Veolia. (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
Alvin Young,
Plaintiff,
'Versus
Veolia North America,
ct
al.,
Defendants.
August 12, 2016
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
David J. Bradley, Clerk
Civil Action H- IS- 327 I
Opinion on Summary Judgment
I.
Introduction.
A hydro blaster says that it was illegal for his employer to require him to complete a
medical examination before starting work in a safety-sensitive position. He also says that it
discriminated against him because of his disability. Because he (a) is not disabled, and
(b)
violated his employer's drug use and disclosure policies, he will take nothing from the employer.
2.
Background.
Veolia North America offers industrial cleaning services. Some of its employees work
in hazardous environments with dangerous equipment. Veolia says that it screens the
prospective employees who will be working in those high-risk environments with preemployment medical examinations. These examinations verify that the employee has the
capacity safely to perform his job. It also requires employees working in safety-sensitive
positions to (a) confidentially disclose any prescription drug use that may prevent him from
safely performing his job before starting a shift, and
(b) sign written acknowledgments of the
company policies, including its Alcohol and Controlled Substances Abuse Policy and the
Prohibited Conduct and Consequences Policy.
OnJanuary 6,2011, Alvin Young applied to Veolia as a hyrdroblaster. A hyrdoblaster
is a safety-sensitive position. After it offered him the job, it required him to submit to a medical
examination. He passed the examination and agreed to comply with Veolia's policies. On
January 21,2011, he began working as a TechnighcianII/Hydroblaster. His job duties included
using high-pressure water hoses, nozzles, scaffolds, ladders and other equipment in steel mills,
power plants, refineries, and chemical plants.
While at work on November
27, 2012,
Young fell over
20
feet from scaffolding. He
took leave to recover from his injuries. While he was not working, Veolia investigated. It found
that Young had taken a prescription Vic odin before his shift and had not disclosed it. Vic odin
is an opioid that can affect motor skills, making the work site less safe for both himself and
others.
InJanuary 20I4, Young's doctor authorized his return to work. When he returned, he
discussed the incident with Chad Leonard and Roy Hernandez, the division and operations
managers. Leonard told him that he violated Veolia's policies when he did not report that he
had taken Vicodin. OnJanuary 20,
On March 25,
20I4,
20I4,
Veolia fired Young.
Young filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. OnJuly
I6, 20I6,
the Commission sent him a right-to-sue letter.
Veolia moves for judgment.
3.
Standard.
Veolia is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if it shows no genuine dispute of
material facts exists. I Young says that he has a disability and Veolia discriminated against him
by (a) firing him after he did not disclose his prescription medicine use, (b) making his
employment contingent on passing a pre-employment medical examination, (c) investigating
his drug use after his on-the-job injury, and (d) requiring employees in safety-sensitive positions
to disclose prescription medicine use.
4.
Disabiliry.
Sufficiently to plead a claim of disability discrimination, Young must establish he
(a) suffers from a disability, (b) is qualified for the job, (c) was subject to an adverse
employment action, and (d) was replaced by a non-disabled person.
Young is not legally disabled. To be disabled under the American Disabilities Act,
Young must show he suffers from a physical or mental condition that substantially limits his
ability to perform at least one major life activity. Young does not specify his condition that
makes him disabled or how his life is impeded. He says it could be a hernia; prescription-
I
FED R. CIV. P.
56.
- 2 -
medicine use is not a physical or mental condition. Young conceded in the pre-employment
examination that his hernia would not affect his performance. He worked for at least two years
as a hydroblaster without incident or reporting a major impairment. He does not identify any
other condition that disables him.
5.
Wrongful Termination.
Even if Young could show that he was disabled, he has not established that he suffered
an adverse employment action because of his disability or that he was replaced by another nondisabled person. He says that his employer used his prescription-medical use as a pretext for
firing him. Veolia has a strict safety policy to protect its workers and its customers who use
dangerous equipment in hazardous environments. It fired him because he took prescription
medication before his shift and did not tell his supervisor - it fired him because he violated
company policy.
6.
In1!cstigating Young's drug usc.
Young says that Veolia violated the Act by (a) requiring a pre-employment examination,
(b) investigating if he had taken prescription medication the day of the accident, and
(c) implementing a company policy that required him to disclose his drug use.
An employer may condition a job offer on a medical examination if (a) the examination
is required only after it makes an offer of employment,
(b) all entering employees are examined
regardless of potential disability, (c) the medical records are held confidential, and (d) it does
not misuse the results. 2 Veolia's policy is to drug test and medically examine employees who
work in safety-sensitive positions. He concedes that a medical examination is a pre-requisite
for employment and that he worked in a safety-sensitive position. He has not established that
Veolia misused this information or that it treated him any differently than any other person in
his position.
If the post-offer and pre-employment examination was improper, he has not established
that he suffered any harm from the examination. He says that he told Veolia about his hernia
and prescription drug use - it still hired him. He has not shown that Veolia misused this
information or that it did not keep it confidential.
2SCC
42 U.s.c. §I21I2(d).
7-
Conclusion.
Young is not disabled and violated a strict company policy. He will take nothing from
Veoha.
Signed on August
12, 2016,
at Houston, Texas.
Lynn N. Hughes
United States DistrictJudge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?