Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

EEOC v. Steel Painters LLC

EEOC v. Steel Painters LLC

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

January 14, 2020, Decided; January 14, 2020, Filed

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-303

Opinion

 [*995]  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the court is Defendant Steel Painters, LLC formerly known as Steel Painters, Inc.'s ("Steel Painters") Motion for Summary Judgment (#21) and Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") Motion for Leave to File Response to Summary Judgment and Exhibits Late (#27). Having considered the pending motions, the submissions of the parties, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the EEOC's motion for leave should be granted as unopposed and Steel Painters's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.

I. Background

This case arises from Steel Painters's termination of Matthew Kimball ("Kimball"). Kimball has been a certified industrial painter since 2005. In 2012, Kimball suffered an on-the-job injury and, as a result of his treatment [**2]  for that injury, developed an addiction to opioid pain medication. In late 2013, Kimball enrolled in a medically supervised drug rehabilitation program. Since 2013, Kimball has been prescribed and taken methadone to treat his addiction. Despite his ongoing treatment for opioid addiction, Kimball has successfully worked as an industrial painter and, prior to his experience with Steel Painters, had never been disciplined or discharged from any workplace because of a methadone or opioid-related accident.

 [*996]  In March 2016, Kimball was conditionally hired by Steel Painters. After accepting the offer, Kimball completed a "Medical History Summary" form and disclosed to Steel Painters that he took prescription methadone. Steel Painters never followed up with Kimball regarding the job offer. In September 2016, Doyle Menard ("Menard"), an operations manager at Steel Painters, recruited Kimball to work at a customer's facility in Silsbee, Texas.1 On September 19, 2016, Kimball completed a "Medical History Summary" and, once again, disclosed that he used prescription methadone. That same day, Kimball underwent a drug screening and attended Steel Painters's safety orientation. Despite its constructive [**3]  knowledge of Kimball's methadone use and not having received the results of his drug screening, Steel Painters put Kimball to work on September 20, 2016.

On September 26, 2016, the drug screening facility notified Steel Painters that Kimball had tested positive for methadone on his drug screening, and Kimball was removed from the jobsite. Later that day, Kimball provided the drug screening facility verification that he was taking prescription methadone. On September 27, 2016, the drug screening facility sent Steel Painters a final report indicating that Kimball's drug test results were "negative." That same morning, Steve Wycoff ("Wycoff"), Steel Painters's Safety Director, called Kimball and told him to report to work and meet him at the front gate because Kimball needed to complete some paperwork. Kimball met Wycoff who instructed him that he need to compete a two-page form titled "Safety Sensitive Employee Medication Approval Form for Prescription Medication" ("Verification Form").

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

433 F. Supp. 3d 989 *; 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18716 **; 19 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P19-019; 2020 WL 525126

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, versus STEEL PAINTERS LLC formerly known as STEEL PAINTERS, INC., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

Painters, disability, methadone, addiction, Verification, summary judgment, hire, prescription, non discriminatory reason, terminated, genuine, medication, proffered, pretext, drug screening, articulate, deposition, impairment, bears, adverse employment action, summary judgment motion, essential function, prima facie case, direct threat, material fact, discriminatory, prescribed, disparate, safely, email