Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03948/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12117ad - Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TODD POLLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No. 2:12-CV-03948-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an employment action. Plaintiff Todd Pollard is a former employee 

of defendant Drummond Company, Inc. Mr. Pollard worked as an underground 

coal miner at Drummond’s Shoal Creek mine in Adger, Alabama. After Mr. 

Pollard visited a doctor for treatment of an on-the-job injury to his little finger, 

Drummond learned that Mr. Pollard has chronic back pain for which he takes 

methadone. Based on Mr. Pollard’s methadone use, Drummond suspended Mr. 

Pollard. Mr. Pollard challenged his suspension and underwent a fitness-for-duty 

examination. Drummond ultimately terminated Mr. Pollard. Mr. Pollard contends

that Drummond suspended him, and ultimately terminated him, because of his 

disability; he asserts claims against Drummond for disability discrimination. 

The parties explored Mr. Pollard’s claim during months of discovery. 

Drummond contends that none of the evidence developed in discovery creates a 

disputed issue of material fact that a jury must resolve. Consequently, pursuant to 

FILED

 2015 Sep-10 AM 09:18

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 21
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Drummond asks the Court to enter judgment 

in its favor on all of Mr. Pollard’s claims. (Doc. 41). For the reasons provided 

below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Drummond’s motion for 

summary judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is 

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as 

a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To demonstrate that there is a genuine 

dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a 

motion for summary judgment must cite “to particular parts of materials in the 

record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, 

affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the 

motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(c)(1)(A). When considering a summary judgment motion, the Court must 

view the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party. White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc., 789 F.3d 1188, 1191 (11th Cir. 

2015). “The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other 

materials in the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 21
3

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Drummond operates one of the largest underground coal mines in the United 

States at Shoal Creek mine in Adger, Alabama. (Doc. 42-26, ¶ 4). Underground 

coal mining is a dangerous profession. (Doc. 42-10, p. 28; Doc. 42-11, pp. 54-55; 

Doc. 42-26, ¶ 12).1Shoal Creek uses a method known as longwall mining to 

harvest coal. (Doc. 42-26). In longwall mining, shear machines (also called 

“shearers”) cut long slices of coal from the face of the coal wall. (Doc. 42-26, ¶¶ 

7-11; Doc. 42-1, pp. 104-06). A shear machine essentially is a rotating drum 

covered with metal teeth. Id. Hydraulic jacks and roof supports (also called 

“shields”) hold up the roof of the mine while the shearer harvests a layer of coal. 

When the shearer advances forward, the shields also move forward and allow the 

roof over the harvested area to collapse. Id. The shear machines deposit the 

harvested coal onto a conveyor (also called a “pan line”). Id. 

Mine workers continuously move the shearer, shields, and conveyor system

forward as the shearer advances across the face of the coal. (Doc. 42-26, ¶ 10). 

Miners work in close proximity to each other and to the constantly moving heavy 

machinery. (Doc. 42-26, ¶¶ 13-16). Consequently, mine workers must be very 

 

1 As part of the summary judgment evidence in this case, Drummond provided deposition travel 

transcripts. In this opinion, citations to those deposition transcripts reference deposition page 

numbers rather than the CM/ECF page on which the deposition testimony appears. For example, 

the citation (Doc. 42-10, p. 28) refers to page 28 of the deposition of Don Hendrickson. Page 28 

of Mr. Hendrickson’s deposition appears on page 8 of CM/ECF Doc. 42-10. 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 21
4

attentive and persistently aware of their surroundings to carry out their tasks in the 

mine safely. (Doc. 42-1, pp. 123-24). 

On August 27, 2004, Drummond hired Mr. Pollard to work in the 

company’s underground mine. (Doc. 42-3). From 2009 until he left the company 

in 2012, Mr. Pollard worked in longwall utility. (Doc. 42-3). His job duties 

included moving the shields, operating the shearer, and operating heavy-duty 

vehicles to transport the shields and conveyors in the mine. (Doc. 42-1, pp. 83-86, 

99-102, 109-10, 138-39; Doc. 42-28, p. 8). 

Mr. Pollard’s eight-year work history at Drummond is fairly unremarkable. 

Don Hendrickson, Drummond’s General Manager of Operations for the Shoal 

Creek mine, once observed Mr. Pollard slumping or dozing off while at the 

controls of one of the mining machines. (Doc. 42-10, pp. 18-19, 24-25, 48). Mr. 

Hendrickson does not recall when the incident occurred. (Doc. 42-10, p. 18). He

did not make a written record of the event because “[Mr. Pollard] said he had a 

rough night. I got [sic] a lot of guys that had rough nights.” Id. Near the time of 

Mr. Pollard’s fitness for duty evaluation, Mr. Hendrickson asked Mr. Pollard’s

supervisor about Mr. Pollard’s work. The supervisor reported that Mr. Pollard was 

“slacking off” and had to be reminded to complete his job duties. (Doc. 42-10, pp. 

24-26, 30-32, 36).

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 21
5

Mr. Pollard’s attendance record declined somewhat over his eight-year 

tenure with Drummond. His overall absentee rate (including excused and 

unexcused absences) in 2004 was approximately 6%; in 2005, it was 

approximately 9%; in 2006, it was approximately 12.5%; in 2007, it was 

approximately 11%; in 2008, it was approximately 11%; in 2009, it was 

approximately 12.5%; and in 2010, prior to Mr. Pollard’s suspension in November 

2010, it was approximately 19%. (Doc. 42-28, pp. 17-28). Many of Mr. Pollard’s 

absences in 2010 were related to his now-wife’s medical treatments. (Doc. 42-2, 

pp. 325-26).

Between 2004 and 2012, Mr. Pollard suffered two minor job-related injuries. 

On December 15, 2009, Mr. Pollard chipped his tooth while he was at work. 

According to the Injury Report, while he “was hooking [a] chain tub on [a utility 

vehicle]—the chain he was getting to secure the tub to [the] scoop swung around 

and hit him in the mouth chipping [his] front tooth.” (Doc. 42-3, p. 3). On 

October 27, 2010, Mr. Pollard injured his little finger while he and a co-worker 

were moving dollies in the mine. (Doc. 42-28, p. 31). The co-worker lost his 

grasp on the dolly that he was handling, and the dolly bumped into the dolly that

Mr. Pollard was holding, smashing Mr. Pollard’s little finger. (Doc. 42-1, p. 135-

36).

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 21
6

Drummond sent Mr. Pollard to see Dr. Romeo so that Dr. Romeo could 

examine and treat Mr. Pollard’s finger injury. (Doc. 42-27, ¶ 10). While taking 

Mr. Pollard’s medical history, Dr. Romeo learned that Mr. Pollard was taking 

10mg of methadone 6 times per day for back pain. (Sealed Doc. Tab E-1, PX 16). 

Mr. Pollard acknowledges that he began taking methadone in 2007 to manage back 

pain from an injury that he suffered in a 2007 car accident. (Doc. 42-1, p. 202). 

Dr. Romeo wrote in Mr. Pollard’s medical records that this “dosage of methadone 

. . . raises a safety concern for working in a coal mine. In addition concern is 

raised regarding the possible spinal pathology that would account for back pain 

requiring this level of narcotic use for control and the resultant potential 

inappropriateness of him performing heavy labor.” Id.

Dr. Romeo forwarded Mr. Pollard’s treatment records to Drummond’s 

Disability Management department. (Doc. 42-29, ¶ 5). On November 1, 2010, a 

member of that department sent a redacted copy of Dr. Romeo’s October 27, 2010

records to Mike Clements, Drummond’s Manager of Employee and Industrial 

Relations. (Doc. 42-29, ¶ 6). The redacted copy did not contain specific 

information regarding Mr. Pollard’s back pain, his use of methadone, or his dosage 

of methadone. (Sealed Doc. Tab M-1). On November 3, 2010, Mr. Clements 

informed Mr. Hendrickson that Dr. Romeo had raised safety concerns about Mr. 

Pollard. (Doc. 42-26, ¶ 21). Based on his review of Dr. Romeo’s redacted records, 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 21
7

Mr. Hendrickson had Mr. Pollard return to see Dr. Romeo on November 4 for a 

fitness for duty examination. (Doc. 42-26, ¶ 22).

To assess whether Mr. Pollard could continue working at the mine safely, 

Dr. Romeo asked Mr. Pollard to authorize the release of his medical records from 

his treating physicians. (Tab E-1, PX 17). Mr. Pollard refused on the advice of his 

union representative. (Doc. 42-1, pp. 204-05). Dr. Romeo’s records from the 

fitness for duty examination indicate that Mr. Pollard “first stated he takes 

Methadone 10mg 6 [times per day], then stated he takes 5 [per day], then stated he 

doesn’t take it every day. He finally stated he takes 0-3 [per day].” (Tab E-1, PX

17). Dr. Romeo’s review of the Alabama Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 

database revealed that Mr. Pollard had a prescription for 90 mg of methadone per 

day (270 pills per month). (Tab E-1, PX 17).

Based on his examination of Mr. Pollard and his review of the prescription 

drug monitoring database, Dr. Romeo advised Drummond’s Disability 

Management department that Mr. Pollard would “present a direct threat to 

him[self] or to others” if he continued to perform his job duties at Shoal Creek 

mine. (Tab E-1, PX 17). Disability Management personnel then spoke with Mr. 

Clements to apprise him of Dr. Romeo’s recommendation. Mr. Clements also 

received a redacted copy of Dr. Romeo’s fitness for duty examination report. 

(Doc. 42-29, ¶ 11; Tab M-1). Mr. Clements provided this information to Mr. 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 21
8

Hendrickson, who in turn suspended Mr. Pollard from his job duties at Shoal Creek 

mine. (Doc. 42-27, ¶¶ 16-17).

Mr. Pollard challenged Drummond’s suspension decision. Pursuant to his 

union’s collective bargaining agreement with Drummond, Mr. Pollard and 

Drummond mutually agreed upon an independent physician, Dr. Beck, to evaluate 

Mr. Pollard and determine whether Mr. Pollard was fit for duty. (Doc. 42-28, p.

33; Doc. 42-9, p. 17; Doc. 42-11, p. 68).

Mr. Pollard authorized the release of his medical records to Dr. Beck as part 

of Dr. Beck’s review of Mr. Pollard’s fitness for duty. (Doc. 42-2, p. 255). Dr. 

Beck conducted his fitness for duty examination on June 1, 2012 and wrote a 

report of his findings. (Sealed Doc. Tab F-1). Ultimately, Dr. Beck agreed with 

Dr. Romeo’s assessment that Mr. Pollard was a direct threat to himself and to other

workers in the underground mine. (Tab F-1). Dr. Beck based his opinion on 

several factors, including Mr. Pollard’s history of back problems, related weakness 

in the left leg, the likelihood of Mr. Pollard suffering additional back deterioration 

should he continue his job duties at the mine, the requirement of a high dosage of 

methadone to manage Mr. Pollard’s back pain, the possible effects of methadone 

on his ability to work, and the nature of his work environment and job duties. (Tab 

F-1; Doc. 42-16, pp. 14-17, 21-23, 30-31, 56, 65). 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 21
9

Dr. Beck submitted his report to Drummond’s Disability Management 

department on June 8, 2012. (Doc. 42-18). The department communicated Dr. 

Beck’s agreement with Dr. Romeo’s assessment to Mr. Clements, but did not 

reveal any medical information or records. (Doc. 42-27, ¶ 29). Mr. Clements then 

consulted with Mr. Hendrickson. (Doc. 42-27, ¶ 30). Mr. Hendrickson decided to 

terminate Mr. Pollard. In making his decision, Mr. Hendrickson considered a 

variety of factors including Dr. Romeo and Dr. Beck’s recommendations, Mr. 

Pollard’s on-the-job injury history, Mr. Pollard’s recent attendance record, reports 

that Mr. Pollard was slacking off, and Mr. Hendrickson’s observation of Mr. 

Pollard apparently dozing while at the controls of a piece of underground mine 

equipment. (Doc. 42-26, ¶ 28). Mr. Pollard received a letter notifying him of his 

suspension with intent to discharge on June 13, 2012. (Doc. 42-9, p. 18). Mr. 

Pollard’s termination became effective on July 12, 2012. (Doc. 42-27, ¶ 34).

Mr. Pollard filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission on April 22, 2011. In the charge, Mr. Pollard alleged 

that Drummond discriminated and retaliated against him because of his disability. 

(Doc. 42-9, p. 21). The EEOC charge does not mention Mr. Pollard’s termination 

because Mr. Pollard filed the charge before Drummond terminated his job. Mr. 

Pollard did not amend or file a separate EEOC charge after Drummond discharged 

him in July 2012. (Doc. 42-9, p. 21; Doc. 42-2, p. 270).

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 9 of 21
10

Mr. Pollard filed this action on November 26, 2012. He asserts claims for 

disability discrimination, retaliation, and improper medical inquiry under the ADA. 

(Doc. 1). The parties conducted fact and expert discovery. The parties’ evidence 

includes records and opinions from Mr. Pollard’s treating and examining 

physicians and opinions from medical experts who the parties retained for purposes 

of this action. Drummond moved for summary judgment on all of Mr. Pollard’s 

claims, and the parties’ arguments and evidence are before the Court for 

consideration. (Doc. 41).

ANALYSIS

I. Scope of the EEOC Charge

Drummond asks the Court to dismiss Mr. Pollard’s termination claim 

because it exceeds the scope of his EEOC charge. (Doc. 43, pp. 23-27).

Generally, a plaintiff may pursue only claims based on adverse employment 

actions that occur within the 180 days preceding the filing of an EEOC charge. 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). A plaintiff’s lawsuit “is limited by the scope of the EEOC 

investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge of 

discrimination.” Wu v. Thomas, 863 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1989). Although 

exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit, the 

Eleventh Circuit has refused to demand literal compliance in all situations. Id. 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 10 of 21
11

(recognizing that literal compliance does not always advance the purpose of the 

requirement, which is to promote informal settlements). 

As long as allegations in the judicial complaint and proof are 

“reasonably related” to charges in the administrative filing and “no 

material differences” between them exist, the court will entertain 

them. As we have noted . . . , “the ‘scope’ of the judicial complaint is 

limited to the ‘scope’ of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably 

be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” Judicial 

claims which serve to amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus earlier 

EEO complaints are appropriate. Allegations of new acts of 

discrimination, offered as the essential basis for the requested judicial 

review are not appropriate.

Ray v. Freeman, 626 F.2d 439, 443 (5th Cir.1980) (citation omitted) (quoting 

Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 466 (5th Cir.1970)).2

Drummond relies on National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 

U.S. 101 (2002), for the proposition that a “charge . . . shall be filed within one 

hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. 

. . . [D]iscrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they 

are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges. Each discrete discriminatory act 

starts a new clock for filing charges.” 536 U.S. at 109-10, 113. Drummond argues 

that Morgan precludes Mr. Pollard from pursuing any claim based upon his 

discharge because Mr. Pollard did not file an EEOC charge as to that discrete act. 

 

2 After the Fifth Circuit split and the Eleventh Circuit was established, the Eleventh Circuit 

adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions handed down before the close of 

business on September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th. Cir. 

1981).

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 11 of 21
12

The Morgan opinion addresses discrete discriminatory acts that occur more than 

180 days before an employee files an EEOC charge, not acts occurring after the 

filing of an EEOC charge. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Eleventh Circuit has 

discussed whether an employee may include in a lawsuit against his employer 

events that occurred after the employee filed a timely EEOC charge.

The circuits that have addressed this issue are split. For example, the Tenth 

Circuit has extended the Morgan rationale to preclude claims arising out of 

discriminatory acts that occur after an employee files an EEOC charge. Martinez 

v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (10th Cir. 2003). On the other hand, the Eighth 

and Sixth Circuits have rejected that approach. Wedow v. City of Kansas City, 442 

F.3d 661, 673-74 (8th Cir. 2006); Delisle v. Brimfield Township Police Dep’t, Fed. 

Appx. 247, 251-54 (6th Cir. 2004).

Without a clear answer from the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit, 

district courts in this circuit have split as to whether the Morgan rationale should 

apply in cases where discrete discriminatory acts take place after an employee files

an EEOC charge. See Garcia v. Baptist Health S. Fla., Inc., No. 12-23765-CIV, 

2013 WL 632963 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2013) (discussing the split among the district 

courts). For example, the Middle District of Florida dismissed a retaliation claim 

that was not part of an earlier filed EEOC charge for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies, but the Northern District of Florida allowed an employee 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 12 of 21
13

to pursue a retaliation claim even though the employee’s EEOC charge did not 

mention retaliation. Compare Terhune v. Potter, No. 8:08-CV-1218-T-23MAP,

2009 WL 2382281, at *3-4 & n.1 (M.D. Fla. July 31, 2009), with Sumrall v. 

Potter, No. 4:03-CV-103-SPM, 2007 WL 1202722 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2007). As 

the Northern District of Florida noted in Sumrall, the law in the Eleventh Circuit 

currently provides that a related, after-occurring incident can be included within 

the scope of a timely filed EEOC charge. Sumrall, 2007 WL 1202722, at *2

(citing Baker v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 856 F.2d 167, 168-69 (11th Cir. 1988)). 

Like the Sumrall Court, this Court will follow Baker. When a claim for 

termination, which occurred after the employee filed his EEOC charge, “could 

reasonably be expected to grow out of the original charge of discrimination,” the 

district court has jurisdiction to hear the termination claim as well. Baker, 856 

F.2d at 169. Mr. Pollard’s termination claim is “like or related to” the allegations 

in his EEOC charge such that a reasonable investigation of the charge would 

encompass the termination claim. In his EEOC charge, Mr. Pollard claims that 

Drummond suspended him without pay on November 4, 2010 because of his 

disability and refusal to release his medical records to Drummond. (Doc. 42-9). 

His termination claim is virtually identical to his discrimination claim. In fact, the

termination is merely the culmination of the process that began with Mr. Pollard’s

suspension without pay. Drummond terminated Mr. Pollard while Mr. Pollard’s

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 13 of 21
14

EEOC investigation was pending and before the EEOC issued its right-to-sue letter 

on August 29, 2012. 

Mr. Pollard’s termination claim, therefore, is within the scope of his EEOC 

charge, he appropriately exhausted his administrative remedies, and all claims are 

now properly before this Court for consideration on the merits. See, e.g., Everitt v. 

Cent. Miss., Inc. Head Start Program, 444 Fed. Appx. 38, 44 (5th Cir. 2011) 

(concluding that a termination claim was within the scope of an earlier filed EEOC 

charge asserting retaliation, because the allegations were related and the 

termination occurred during the EEOC investigation before the EEOC issued its 

right-to-sue letter); Mesa v. Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc., No. 3:10-CV-2324-

D, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2012) (same); Bryan v. Prince George’s Cnty., Md., 

No. DKC-10-2452, 2011 WL 2650759, at *4 (D. Md. July 5, 2011) (allowing the 

termination claim to go forward, though the plaintiff’s suspension was the only 

adverse action alleged in the EEOC charge, because the termination was merely 

the culmination of the process that began with the plaintiff’s suspension); Jackson 

v. Lake Cnty., No. 01-C-6528, 2003 WL 22127743, at *15 n.15 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 

2003) (same).

II. Merits of the ADA Discrimination Claim

Drummond argues that Mr. Pollard’s discrimination claim fails on the 

merits. To prove a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 14 of 21
15

must demonstrate that he is disabled, that he is a qualified individual, and that he 

was subject to unlawful discrimination because of his disability. Hillburn v. 

Murata Elecs. N. Am., Inc., 181 F.3d 1220, 1226 (11th Cir. 1999). Drummond 

argues that Mr. Pollard cannot establish the second and third elements and that the 

Court, therefore, should dismiss Mr. Pollard’s claim. Drummond also argues that 

its reliance on two doctors’ recommendations regarding Mr. Pollard’s fitness for 

duty was reasonable.

Under the ADA, an individual is “qualified” if he, “with or without 

reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment 

position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Under the 

ADA, an employer cannot “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis 

of disability” by “using qualification standards . . . that screen out or tend to screen 

out an individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6). “By that same 

definition . . . as well as by separate provision, § 12113(a), the [ADA] creates an 

affirmative defense for action under a qualification standard ‘shown to be jobrelated for the position in question and . . . consistent with business necessity.’” 

Chevron U.S.A. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 78 (2002) (quoting 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12112(b)(6)). A qualification standard may include a requirement that an 

individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health and safety of himself or others 

in the workplace. Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(b)(2). Though the Supreme Court in 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 15 of 21
16

Chevron described the “direct threat” defense as an affirmative defense, it did not 

address which party bears the burden of proof. In the Eleventh Circuit, “[t]he 

employee retains at all times the burden of persuading the jury either that he was 

not a direct threat or that reasonable accommodations were available.” Moses v. 

Am. Nonwovens, Inc., 97 F.3d 446, 447 (11th Cir. 1996).3

Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Mr. Pollard posed a direct 

threat to his health and safety or to the health and safety of other Drummond 

employees working in Drummond’s underground mine and whether Drummond’s 

reliance on two physician recommendations was sufficient. Mr. Pollard began 

taking methadone for back pain in 2007 following a car accident, and he used 

methadone from 2007 until 2010 without incident. (Doc. 42-1, p. 202). Dr. 

Romeo opined that this high dosage of methadone was inappropriate and a safety 

concern for work in the mine. (Doc. 42-14, pp. 53-56). Dr. Romeo’s opinion was 

based, at least in part, on his experience with other methadone patients, his 

knowledge of methadone’s potential side effects, and his general belief that any 

mine employee taking methadone should be placed on restriction. (Doc. 42-14, pp. 

 

3

The circuits are split regarding the burden of proof on the question of whether an employee 

poses a direct threat under the ADA. See Branham v. Snow, 392 F.3d 896, n.5 (7th Cir. 2004) 

(discussing the circuit split and suggesting “that the confusion stems from the language of the 

ADA itself, since the statute includes the direct threat language in a section entitled ‘Defenses,’ 

which suggests it is an affirmative defense on which the defendant bears the burden of proof, but 

also classifies the direct threat analysis as a ‘qualification standard,’ which suggests that the 

plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he or she does not constitute a direct threat.”). 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 16 of 21
17

7, 15; Doc. 50-2). Drummond’s medical expert, Dr. Jerrold Leikin, testified that

even a patient who has developed a tolerance for methadone over many years 

would still experience impairment such as slower brain function as a side effect. 

(Doc. 42-21, pp. 17, 37). Dr. Scott Boswell, one of Mr. Pollard’s treating 

physicians, saw things differently. Dr. Boswell testified that a patient like Mr. 

Pollard, who had been taking methadone for a while and had become acclimated to 

the medication, would not be handicapped by it and could perform safety-sensitive 

job functions. (Doc. 42-19, pp. 33-35, 38-39).

The defendant’s “direct threat defense must be based on a reasonable 

medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the 

best available objective evidence, and upon an expressly individualized assessment 

of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the 

job.” Chevron, 536 U.S. at 86. An employer may reasonably rely on medical 

evidence to make its employment decisions, but this reliance must “be reasonably 

based on particularized facts.” Lowe v. Ala. Power Co., 244 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th 

Cir. 2001). An employer may not rely upon the recommendation of a physician 

who, like Dr. Romeo, conducts a cursory examination and bases his opinion at 

least in part on a general assumption that all patients with the same disability have 

the same limitations. Lowe, 244 F.3d at 1309 (denying summary judgment where

a physician recommended restrictions for a double amputee based on a cursory 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 17 of 21
18

examination of him and a general assumption that all double amputees have the 

same limitations). Furthermore, an assessment based on the known possible side 

effects of a medication, as opposed to an individualized inquiry into a patient’s 

present ability to perform his job functions, is insufficient. Haynes v. City of 

Montgomery, No. 2:06-CV-1093-WKW, 2008 WL 4495711, at *4-5 (M.D. Ala. 

Oct. 6, 2008). 

In contrast to Dr. Romeo’s assessment, Dr. Beck testified that Mr. Pollard’s 

high dosage of methadone was not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason to disqualify 

Mr. Pollard from working in the mine. (Doc. 42-16, p. 64). Instead, Dr. Beck 

viewed the high dosage of methadone as an indicator for the level of back pain Mr. 

Pollard suffers. In Dr. Beck’s opinion, that level of pain, along with Mr. Pollard’s 

back weakness and related leg problems, posed a threat both to Mr. Pollard and to 

others working in the mine. (Doc. 42-16, p.17). Dr. Romeo, however, testified 

that if Mr. Pollard could work through his back pain, he would not have a problem 

with that. (Doc. 42-14, pp. 53-56). In short, the two physicians’ opinions and 

recommendations are in conflict.

Beyond the medical evidence in the record, Mr. Pollard presented evidence 

that he is qualified for the essential job tasks of longwall mining. Perhaps most 

compellingly, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Pollard had worked for 

Drummond in a variety of positions since 2004 with only minor infractions. 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 18 of 21
19

Drummond points to Mr. Pollard’s increased absenteeism in 2010, his on-the-job 

injuries in December 2009 and October 2010, and the reports of him “slacking off” 

on the job at some undetermined point during his employment as evidence of 

methadone’s impact on Mr. Pollard’s ability to perform his essential job functions. 

Mr. Pollard’s notice of suspension with intent to terminate did not list these items 

as reasons supporting Drummond’s decision to terminate him. (Doc. 42-9). And 

the parties dispute the extent to which these job issues can be attributed fairly to 

Mr. Pollard’s back pain and methadone use. If these were signs of methadone’s 

side effects, the performance issues did not manifest themselves until Mr. Pollard 

had been on the medication for almost three years. 

Mr. Pollard’s situation is similar to the plaintiff’s situation in Rigby v. 

Springs Indus., Inc., No. 1:03-CV-0637-VEH, ECF No. 35 (N.D. Ala. May 5, 

2006). In that case, the plaintiff alleged that he was not retained because he took 

Lortab. Although the defendant presented evidence of the known side effects of 

Lortab, the plaintiff presented evidence that he did not display those side effects 

and had worked for approximately eight months without incident. In Rigby, the 

Court concluded that the evidence constituted a factual dispute such that summary 

judgment in favor of the defendant was not appropriate. For similar reasons, 

summary judgment is inappropriate here.

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 19 of 21
20

In sum, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Pollard, 

questions of fact remain as to whether he posed a direct threat to his safety or the 

safety of others and as to whether Drummond’s decisions to suspend and 

ultimately terminate him were based on particularized facts using the best available 

objective medical evidence as required by the governing regulations. Resolving 

those questions will hinge on assessment of witness credibility and a weighing of 

the evidence, which are tasks for a jury, not a court. Nevitt v. U.S. Steel Corp., 18 

F. Supp. 3d 1322, 1334 (N.D. Ala. 2014). Summary judgment, therefore, is

inappropriate as to Mr. Pollard’s ADA discrimination claim.

III. Improper Medical Examination and Retaliation Claims

Drummond argues that Mr. Pollard’s improper medical inquiry and 

retaliation claims fail as a matter of law. Mr. Pollard does not oppose the dismissal 

of those two claims. (Doc. 51, p. 4). Therefore, the Court grants Drummond’s 

motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Pollard’s improper medical inquiry and 

retaliation claims. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the Court GRANTS IN PART

and DENIES IN PART Drummond’s motion for summary judgment. The Court 

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Mr. Pollard’s improper medical examination 

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 20 of 21
21

and retaliation claims. The Court will set Mr. Pollard’s ADA discrimination claim 

for trial by separate order.4

DONE and ORDERED this September 10, 2015.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

4 Drummond has filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ali. (Doc. 66). The Court 

has not relied on the testimony of Dr. Ali in reaching a decision on Drummond’s motion for 

summary judgment and therefore finds that the motion to exclude Dr. Ali’s expert testimony is 

moot for present purposes. Drummond may renew the motion to exclude Dr. Ali’s expert 

testimony for purposes of trial if the company wishes to do so.

Case 2:12-cv-03948-MHH Document 69 Filed 09/10/15 Page 21 of 21