Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00253/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00253-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL GREEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 2:15cv253-WHA

v. )

) (wo)

PIKE ROAD VOLUNTEER FIRE )

PROTECTION AUTHORITY & JANE )

JAMES, individually, )

)

 Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the court on a Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #33). 

The Defendants ask the court to reconsider Green’s comparator evidence, the court’s 

questioning of the reasons for termination articulated by Pike Road Volunteer Fire Protection 

Authority (“PRVFPA”), and additional compartor evidence.

PRVFPA moved for summary judgment stating that Plaintiff Green was not replaced by 

somone outside of his protected group, to which Green argued that he was replaced by Matt 

Missidine as PRVFPA Fire Chief, and that there are no allegations of a substance abuse problem 

against Matt Missidine. (Doc. #24-12 p.5). The court also previously stated that Green pointed 

to another firefighter, Blake Green, who was arrested for a DUI and that arrest was treated 

differently because it was a “separate incident.” (Doc. #24-16 at p.93:14-23). The court 

expressed that at a later point in the proceedings, the difference in treatment, if there was one, 

may be explained as being based on something other than a perception that Green suffered from 

a disability, but that there was not enough evidence before the court to make that determination. 

Case 2:15-cv-00253-WHA-GMB Document 36 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 3
2

(Doc. #32 at p.10).

The PRVFPA attempts to advance arguments now which undermine Green’s evidence. 

The time to raise arguments regarding Green’s evidence and response to the Motion for 

Summary Judgment was in PRVFPA’s Reply Brief, not on a Motion to Reconsider the court’s 

ruling. See Gipson v. Mattox, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1190 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (“To allow 

reconsideration on this basis would be to compromise fundamental principles of finality of 

rulings, would be manifestly inefficient, would squander judicial resources, and would send a 

message to other litigants that they need not bother raising all of their objections and arguments 

in briefing summary judgment, because the losing party can successfully inject those arguments 

later via a motion to reconsider.”).

In the previous Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court also expressed that the 

Defendants set out in their brief as the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Green’s firing 

that “Green violated a written PRVFPA policy by appearing in public and being arrested for DUI 

on January 4, 2014 with a PRVFPA decal prominently displayed on the side of his vehicle,” he 

was terminated “for violating the Board’s policy and causing the PRVFPA’s public reputation to 

suffer in the opinion of James and Jackson,” and because “Green’s failure to inform the Board of 

his DUI arrest was a violation of the Board’s trust in its Fire Chief.” (Doc. #32 at p. 7). 

The PRVFPA now seeks to clarify that it has always relied on a second chance warning 

as a reason for Green’s termination, and now also advances an argument that reliance on a good 

faith belief that Green’s job performance was impaired by drinking or drug use would not violate 

the ADA. It may ultimately be that at trial, the jury accepts that these were factors relied on in 

the decision-making process, and that the decision was not based on a perceived disability. 

Case 2:15-cv-00253-WHA-GMB Document 36 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 3
3

However, the court again concludes that summary judgment cannot be granted on that basis, 

given the fact issues raised by the articulation of the reasons for Green’s termination, set out 

above, and the other fact issues previously addressed.

The Motion for Reconsideration is ORDERED DENIED.

Done this 17th day of June, 2016.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00253-WHA-GMB Document 36 Filed 06/17/16 Page 3 of 3