Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
March 12, 2010, Decided; March 12, 2010, Filed
Civil Action No. 08-809
[*506] MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case involves Plaintiff, the Equal Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC"), claim under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 against Defendant, Hussey Copper Ltd. ("Hussey"). The EEOC brought suit to challenge the employment practices of Hussey regarding its treatment of disabled applicants and to provide appropriate relief to Donald Teaford ("Teaford"), who the EEOC claims was adversely affected by such practices. (See Docket No. 23). In its Amended Complaint, the EEOC alleges that Hussey discriminated against Teaford because he was a recovering addict in a supervised rehabilitation program when it withdrew his conditional offer of employment. (Id. at 3-4). The EEOC seeks a [**2] permanent injunction against Hussey preventing it from engaging in further discriminatory practices on the basis of disability, as well as damages including back pay for Teaford. (Id. at 4-5). The matter comes before the Court on Hussey's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 35). Upon consideration of the parties' filings, and for the following reasons, Hussey's Motion is DENIED.
II. Factual Background
Unless otherwise specified, the facts of record are uncontested. Viewed in the light most favorable to the EEOC, they are as follows.
A. The Parties
1. Donald Teaford
Donald Teaford is 53 years old and has worked throughout his adult life in the military and industrial settings. (Docket No. 45 at PP 132-135). He has completed community college courses in electronics technology, and in the 1970s, he apprenticed as a machinist. (Id. at P 133). Teaford served in the Air Force between 1974 and 1979 as an electronics technician, and in the 1980s he worked as a laboratory technician at Mobay Chemical. (Id). His duties with the Air Force included repair and maintenance of radar navigation and bomb plotting systems, and operation of various milling machines. (Id. at P 134). Subsequently, he worked [**3] in the automotive industry at General Motors Corporation as a manufacturing engineer and, after he was laid off, he worked as an electronics service technician, plastics extruder operator, and was employed by a steel company where he performed production jobs in a steel plant. (Id. at PP 133, 134).
At the time he applied for a position with Hussey in July 2007, Teaford was recovering from a prior addiction to illegal opiates, including Oxycodone. 1 (Docket No. 45 at P 132). His treatment for same [*507] included participation in drug treatment and counseling with Health Masters, Inc. 2 ("Health Masters"), an out-patient methadone clinic he entered on May 1, 2007. (Id.). Throughout his employment, he was never disciplined or discharged because of drug use. (Id. at P 133).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
696 F. Supp. 2d 505 *; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22920 **; 22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1821; 14 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P14-075
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. HUSSEY COPPER LTD., Defendant.
Prior History: EEOC v. Hussey Copper LTD, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27658 (W.D. Pa., Apr. 2, 2009)
methadone, disability, direct threat, recommendation, cognitive, laborer, side effect, accommodation, impairment, hired, individualized assessment, summary judgment, patients, copper, summary judgment motion, essential function, positions, medicine, opiates, argues, standard of care, conversations, employees, disclose, effects, material fact, prescription, regulations, undisputed, practices