Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/165/426/585598/
Timestamp: 2019-05-20 00:51:18
Document Index: 328565654

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 1630', '§ 1630', '§ 621', '§ 38', '§ 12117', '§ 37', 'art, 461', 'art, 461', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112']

Robert W. Hamlin; Jeanne E. Hamlin, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Charter Township of Flint; Charter Township of Flint Firedepartment; Sally Shaheen Joseph; Greg Wright,defendants-appellants (97-1026).robert W. Hamlin, Plaintiff-appellant (97-2105)/cross-appellee,jeanne E. Hamlin, Plaintiff, v. Charter Township of Flint; Charter Township of Flint Firedepartment; Sally Shaheen Joseph; Greg Wright,defendants-appellees/cross-appellants (97-2129), 165 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 1999) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 1999 › Robert W. Hamlin; Jeanne E. Hamlin, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Charter Township of Flint; Charter Town...
Robert W. Hamlin; Jeanne E. Hamlin, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Charter Township of Flint; Charter Township of Flint Firedepartment; Sally Shaheen Joseph; Greg Wright,defendants-appellants (97-1026).robert W. Hamlin, Plaintiff-appellant (97-2105)/cross-appellee,jeanne E. Hamlin, Plaintiff, v. Charter Township of Flint; Charter Township of Flint Firedepartment; Sally Shaheen Joseph; Greg Wright,defendants-appellees/cross-appellants (97-2129), 165 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 1999)
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 165 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 1999)
Argued Oct. 30, 1998. Decided Jan. 8, 1999
At trial, Hamlin contended that Flint unlawfully terminated him on the basis of his inability to fight fires, claiming that front-line firefighting was not an essential part of his duties as the Assistant Fire Chief. Based upon Hamlin's proof that he was otherwise qualified and that Flint had failed to reasonably accommodate his disability, the district court, pursuant to Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996), shifted the burden to Flint to prove that the challenged job requirement of being physically capable of fighting fires was an essential function of Hamlin's position.
The ADA "prohibits employers from discriminating 'against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.' " Monette, 90 F.3d 1173, 1178 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). MHCRA claims "essentially track" federal disability discrimination law. See id. at 1178 n. 3.
Although the district court criticized Monette in great detail, it properly applied Monette to shift the burden from Hamlin to Flint to prove that front-line firefighting was an essential element of Hamlin's job. According to Monette, once the disabled individual contends that a particular job requirement is unessential, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the challenged requirement is necessary. See Monette, 90 F.3d at 1184. The ADA prohibits an employer from using qualification standards to deny employment "unless the standard ... is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b) (6). Monette states that the "clear import" of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b) (6) of the ADA "dictates that employers bear the burden of proving that a challenged job requirement is 'job-related.' " Monette, 90 F.3d at 1184. Although an employer may establish minimum physical standards or qualifications for a position, "it will have to show that it actually imposes such requirements on its employees...." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n), App.
Monette is the law of this circuit, and as such this panel is not free to overturn it. See Meeks v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 738 F.2d 748, 751 (6th Cir. 1984) (" [A] panel of this court may not overrule a previous panel's decision. Only an en banc court may overrule a circuit precedent, absent an intervening Supreme Court decision.") (citing Timmreck v. United States, 577 F.2d 372, 376 n. 15 (6th Cir. 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 441 U.S. 780, 99 S. Ct. 2085, 60 L. Ed. 2d 634 (1979)). Furthermore, we find that Monette correctly interprets the ADA to require the employer to establish that the challenged function is essential. Accordingly, if the employer cannot prove its affirmative defense, then the ADA bars the employer from terminating an employee based upon the employee's inability to perform that function.
Flint further argues that if we decline to reverse Monette, we should at least limit Monette to disallow jury instructions that shift the burden of persuasion to defendants. Jury instructions are reviewed "as a whole to determine whether they adequately inform the jury of relevant considerations and provide a basis in law for the jury to reach a decision." Beard v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, 900 F.2d 71, 72 (6th Cir. 1990). "A party is not entitled to a new trial based upon alleged deficiencies in the jury instructions unless the instructions, taken as a whole, are misleading or give an inadequate understanding of the law." Bowman v. Koch Transfer Co., 862 F.2d 1257, 1263 (6th Cir. 1988) (citing Coughlin v. Capitol Cement Co., 571 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1978)).
Flint repeatedly sought a declaration that, as a matter of law, Hamlin was not a qualified individual because his inability to fight fires created a "direct threat" to the safety of Hamlin and others. The district court denied Flint's motions on this issue, which we review under a de novo standard. See, e.g., Williams v. Nashville Network, 132 F.3d 1123, 1130-31 (6th Cir. 1997) (applying a de novo standard of review where the district court denied plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that whether the failure to hire an applicant violated Title VII was a question for the jury).
As a defense to Hamlin's claims, Flint argued that Hamlin posed a direct threat because of his physical inability to engage in active firefighting duties. Flint cites cases in which hospital employees were held to pose a direct threat due to their HIV-infected status, coupled with their interaction with patients and the unpredictability of the work environment. See, e.g., Mauro v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 886 F. Supp. 1349, 1352-54 (W.D. Mich. 1995) (granting summary judgment to a hospital where an HIV-infected surgical technician posed a small but deadly risk to patients, and the hospital could not eliminate the risk due to the unpredictable nature of emergency medicine).
Flint presented witnesses describing the unpredictability of a firefighter's work environment, the need for firefighting capabilities generally, and the possibility that the first responder to a scene might be in a position to rescue someone trapped inside a building. It also presented evidence regarding the Flint Township Fire Department's practice of the "two in / two out" rule, which provides that when two firefighters go into a burning building for fire suppression or rescue, another pair of firefighters remains outside and ready to go in to assist if necessary. Hamlin responded by pointing out that he was the Assistant Fire Chief, which is not equivalent to a firefighter position. See EEOC v. City of St. Paul, 671 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (8th Cir. 1982) (analyzing the distinctions in the physical performance duties of a fire chief as opposed to a firefighter).
In addition, " [a]n employer ... is not permitted to deny an employment opportunity to an individual with a disability merely because of a slightly increased risk. The risk can only be considered when it poses a significant risk, i.e., high probability of substantial harm; a speculative or remote risk is insufficient." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (citations omitted). The proof tendered in the present case did not establish as a matter of law that there was a high probability of potential harm because of Hamlin's physical limitations, or that the alleged risk was anything more than speculative or remote. Flint simply relied upon its own "subjective perceptions" that all line officers in the Fire Department do nothing other than directly fight fires. There was thus no error in the district court's reserving this issue for the jury.
Because it is a question of legal policy, we review a district court's decision to deduct collateral benefits from a jury discrimination award under a de novo standard. See Rasimas v. Michigan Dep't of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614, 627-28 (6th Cir. 1983) (rejecting the premise that the district court had the discretion to offset collateral unemployment benefits against awards in a discrimination case, based on this court's conclusion that unemployment benefits and back pay awards serve radically different purposes); see also Jackson v. City of Cookeville, 31 F.3d 1354, 1359 (6th Cir. 1994) ("The collateral source rule is a substantive rule of law ...").
We acknowledge, however, that other circuits, as well as our own under unique circumstances, have applied an abuse of discretion standard in analyzing the issue of whether to offset collateral source benefits. See, e.g., Jackson, 31 F.3d at 1359 (holding that although collateral source benefits should not ordinarily be deducted in discrimination cases, the district court did not abuse its discretion by deducting such benefits from the plaintiff's front pay award when the plaintiff himself had requested the jury to subtract the collateral benefits from his back pay award); Lussier v. Runyon, 50 F.3d 1103, 1107-10 (1st Cir. 1995) (surveying other circuits regarding their positions on the appropriate standard of review to be used in evaluating a district court's decision to offset collateral source benefits from front pay awards, and concluding that the district court retained discretion to offset such benefits).
We disagree [that the district court should have discretion in determining when to deduct unemployment compensation from a backpay award]. Title VII is intended to establish a national backpay policy. That policy is to make 'persons whole for injuries suffered from past discrimination.' Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 45 L. Ed. 2d 280 (1975). It is inconsistent with this national policy to argue ... that two identically situated claimants may be made 'whole' by radically different backpay awards. To allow district courts to determine just how 'whole' a claimant will be is antagonistic to the establishment of a uniform national policy.
"The collateral source rule is a substantive rule of law that bars a tortfeasor from reducing damages owed to a plaintiff by the amount of recovery the plaintiff receives from sources that are collateral to the tortfeasor." Jackson v. City of Cookeville, 31 F.3d 1354, 1359 (6th Cir. 1994). In Jackson, the plaintiff won a jury verdict based on a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. The trial judge reduced the jury verdict by an amount representing the plaintiff's expected future pension benefits. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that "his pension plan payments [were] payments from a collateral source and should not have been deducted from his front pay award by the district court's remittitur." Jackson, 31 F.3d at 1359. This court noted that "since [the plaintiff's] retirement, he ha [d] been receiving pension benefits from the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System, which appear [ed] to be an entity separate and distinct from its employer, though his employer paid into the system for [his] benefit." Id. In light of the collateral source of the benefits, the court announced the following general rule:
In 1996, this court decided Thurman v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 90 F.3d 1160 (6th Cir. 1996). Thurman held that the plaintiff's unemployment benefits and workers' compensation benefits were collateral source benefits, and thus should not have been deducted from the jury's award of back pay for racial discrimination. See id. at 1171 (following Rasimas v. Michigan Dep't of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1983), and Knafel v. Pepsi-Cola Bottlers of Akron, Inc., 899 F.2d 1473 (6th Cir. 1990)). Before reaching this conclusion, however, the court distinguished Hawley v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 958 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1992), by stating that Hawley "held that pension benefits should be deducted from a backpay award in an ADEA case." Thurman, 90 F.3d at 1171. In further describing the Hawley holding, the court stated:
These decisions of our court are consistent with the holdings in other circuits. See, e.g., Doyne v. Union Elec. Co., 953 F.2d 447, 451-52 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding that pension payments from a collateral source should not have been deducted from the plaintiff's jury verdict in an age discrimination case); EEOC v. O'Grady, 857 F.2d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 1988) (affirming the district court's refusal to offset pension benefits from an age discrimination award).
The Fifth Circuit in Phillips v. Western Company of North America, 953 F.2d 923, 932 (5th Cir. 1992), set forth the following factors to determine whether pension benefits are collateral:
In the present case, each of the five factors supports the non-deductibility of Hamlin's disability pension benefits. Hamlin made contributions to fund his pension pursuant to section 38.552(3) of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Contributions by the employer "were not made to discharge any liability or obligation of respondent, but to carry out a policy of social betterment for the benefit of [the town of Flint]." Rasimas, 714 F.2d at 628 n. 13 (holding that unemployment benefits are collateral and should not be deducted from back pay awards) (quoting NLRB v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U.S. 361, 364, 71 S. Ct. 337, 95 L. Ed. 337 (1951)). The plan arises pursuant to the Michigan statute and a collective bargaining agreement. A disability pension under the plan is available to cover both work-related and non-work-related disabilities, payments are contingent upon length of service, and the only language contemplating the offsetting of other payments pertains specifically to workers' compensation benefits stemming from the same injury. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 38.556. The evidence thus establishes that Hamlin's disability payments are collateral source benefits.
(footnote omitted). We agree with the district court's first three rules, but disagree with the general applicability of its fourth rule. In Hamlin's case, we find that the district court's fourth rule directly contradicts the first three rules. The fourth rule would only be relevant if the benefit were not from a collateral source, as in Hawley v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 958 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1992), which is not the case with Hamlin's pension benefits. As a general proposition, the district court's purported fourth rule would swallow up the entire logic of the collateral source rule long adhered to by this and other circuits.
"We usually sustain a district court's award and division of attorneys' fees absent an abuse of discretion." Kalyawongsa v. Moffett, 105 F.3d 283, 289 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Dean v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 860 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1988)). "An abuse of discretion will be found where the district court plainly erred." Thurman v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 90 F.3d 1160, 1170-71 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 307 (6th Cir. 1988)).
On December 3, 1996, the jury returned a $500,000 verdict in Hamlin's favor. The jury found that Flint had violated the ADA and the MHCRA. Both statutes provide that prevailing parties are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (ADA attorneys' fee provision); MICH. COMP. LAWS § 37.1606 (MHCRA attorneys' fee provision). In Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), the Fifth Circuit enunciated twelve factors that trial courts may consider in calculating reasonable attorneys' fee awards. See Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93, 109 S. Ct. 939, 103 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1989) ("Johnson 's 'list of 12' thus provides a useful catalog of the many factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of an award of attorney's fees ..."). The twelve factors are as follows:
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 n. 3, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983) (summarizing the Johnson factors).
This court has held that the trial court may apply the Johnson factors either after the court's initial valuation of the hours reasonably expended at a reasonable rate or during its initial valuation. United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers v. G & M Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 732 F.2d 495, 502-03, 503 n. 3 (6th Cir. 1984) (stating that the trial court should first conduct the initial valuation, then examine the award against several factors, including the Johnson factors, but also noting that trial courts usually subsume the analysis of those factors within the initial calculation). The district court should also "provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons" for its conclusions regarding an attorneys' fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S. Ct. 1933.
(1) This case was very close at both the summary judgment phase and at trial; (2) Plaintiffs' requested relief was well in excess of $1,000,000; (3) Plaintiffs' counsel's representation is pursuant to a 1/3 contingency fee contract; and (4) The Court expended a great deal of time and effort in researching and considering important matters in this case that counsel in this matter failed to identify and/or properly discuss. With this deduction, the attorneys' fees stand at $50,127.50. The Court finds that these fees are proportional to Plaintiffs' success at trial and the skill that counsel brought to bear on this matter. See, e.g., United Slate, Tile & Composition v. G & M Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc., 732 F.2d 495, 502 (6th Cir. 1984). Therefore, this is the amount of fees that the Court will award.
Secondly, the fact that Hamlin sued for more than $1,000,000, but the jury awarded only $500,000, is not a proper basis for reducing the fee request. The law does not require plaintiffs to recover 100% of what they sue for in order to be considered successful at trial. Otherwise, virtually no plaintiff would ever recover reasonable attorneys' fees. In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983), the Supreme Court stated:
The district court's final factor was that it had to spend a great deal of time on "important matters" that counsel failed to properly identify or discuss. This cryptic statement does not provide a "clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award" as required by Hensley. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S. Ct. 1933. Furthermore, time spent by the court has never been considered as a basis to subtract from time reasonably spent by counsel. Indeed, if more time had been spent by Hamlin's counsel to further aid the court, the fee request would presumably have been proportionately higher.
Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996)--a decision that binds this panel, of course, just as it bound the district court--holds that "if a disabled individual is challenging a particular job requirement as unessential, the employer will bear the burden of proving that the challenged criterion is necessary." Id. at 1184. Monette thus treats the matter of "essential functions" not as an element of the plaintiff's case, but as an affirmative defense--at least where the plaintiff wants it that way.
In taking this tack, the Monette opinion (see 90 F.3d at 1183-84) blurs the distinction between "undue hardship"--a showing of which, under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b) (5) (A), is an affirmative defense to a claim that the employer has not made the requisite accommodations to the claimant's limitations--and "essential functions," an ability to perform which would seem to have been made an element of the plaintiff's case under §§ 12112(a) and 12111(8). Similarly, Monette (see 90 F.3d at 1184) blurs the distinction between essential functions and "business necessity"--a showing of which, under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b) (6), can be an affirmative defense to the prohibited use of "qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria" that tend to screen out people with disabilities.
As the district court pointed out at an early stage of the proceedings in the case at bar, the Monette panel's analysis "equates a statutory prohibition (i.e., no unlawful or pretextual screening mechanisms) with the creation of a legal burden." Hamlin v. Charter Township of Flint, 942 F. Supp. 1129, 1137 (E.D. Mich. 1996). Such an equation, as the district court went on to explain, is highly problematic:
"(1) that he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that he is qualified, that is ... he is able to perform the essential functions of the job; and (3) that the employer terminated him because of his disability." White v. York Int'l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360-61 (10th Cir. 1995) (footnote omitted) (emphasis supplied).
As to the collateral benefit issue, " [t]he weight of authority unquestionably favors the view that decisions about whether to consider the plaintiff's receipt of collateral benefits in gauging the appropriateness and amount of front pay, and if so, how to calibrate the scales, lie within the equitable discretion of the trial court." Lussier v. Runyon, 50 F.3d 1103, 1108 (1st Cir. 1995). Citing, however, Rasimas v. Michigan Dep't of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1983)--a decision that did not address front pay, but that discerned "a national backpay policy" prohibiting the deduction of unemployment compensation benefits from backpay awards in employment discrimination cases--my colleagues on the panel find the majority view, as adopted by the First Circuit, unpersuasive. I myself do not find it unpersuasive.