Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/236/299/510982/
Timestamp: 2019-11-18 00:32:18
Document Index: 642956779

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 40', '§ 31306', '§ 382', '§ 40', '§ 40', 'art 40', 'art 40', '§ 40', 'art 40', 'art 40', '§ 40', '§ 12117', '§2000', '§ 2000', '§12117', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 1601', '§ 12102', '§ 12114', '§ 12114', '§ 12102', '§ 1630', '§1630', '§ 362', '§ 362']

Christopher J. Parry, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc.; Austintown Ambulatory Er; Medexpress; Drug Free, Inc., Defendants-appellees, Arnold J. Pritchard; Apic; Diversified Contract Services, Inc., Defendants, 236 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2000) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 2000 › Christopher J. Parry, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc.; Austintown Ambulatory...
Christopher J. Parry, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc.; Austintown Ambulatory Er; Medexpress; Drug Free, Inc., Defendants-appellees, Arnold J. Pritchard; Apic; Diversified Contract Services, Inc., Defendants, 236 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2000)
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 236 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2000) Argued: September 15, 2000Decided and Filed: December 29, 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 98-00179, John M. Manos, District Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
After the collection, Plaintiff was taken to an alcohol technician for an alcohol breath test. Carter testified that she told both the alcohol technician and Plaintiff that he could not leave because another urine specimen was required in light of the temperature and specific gravity readings of Plaintiff's earlier specimen. Plaintiff testified that during the course of events, " [he] knew [he] had to stay at the facility." (J.A. at 627.) After the alcohol test, Plaintiff was escorted to the waiting area near the reception desk.
Plaintiff commenced this action on January 27, 1998. On April 16, 1998, Mohawk filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6). On August 8, 1998, Mohawk converted its motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56. On June 4, 1998, MedExpress filed a motion for summary judgment. Drug Free and Austintown filed motions for summary judgment on July 21 and 31, 1998, respectively.
49 C.F.R. § 40.25 (f) (22) (ii). The statute under which the regulation was promulgated, FOTETA, provides that the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations to establish drug testing programs " [i]n the interest of commercial motor vehicle safety." 49 U.S.C. § 31306. In addition, the regulations provide that " [t]he purpose . . . is to establish programs designed to help prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances by drivers of commercial motor vehicles." 49 C.F.R. § 382.101.
In Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975), the Supreme Court articulated a four-part test to determine whether an implied right of action exists in a federal statute. The four-part test established in Cort requires that the court consider: (1)whether plaintiffs are among the class of persons intended to benefit from the enactment of the statute; (2) whether there is any evidence of legislative intent to provide or deny a private remedy; (3) whether a private remedy would be consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme; and (4) whether the action is one traditionally delegated to state law so it would be inappropriate to imply a federal remedy. 422 U.S. at 78. Since the issuance of Cort, however, the Supreme Court has refined this inquiry and the focal point is whether Congress, expressly or by implication, intended to create a private cause of action. See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 15-16 (1979); Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575 (1979); see also Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 189 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring) (" [W]e effectively overruled the Cort v. Ash analysis in Touche Ross . . . and Transamerica . . ., converting one of its four factors (congressional intent) into the determinative factor."). The other Cort factors are relevant insofar as they assist in determining congressional intent. See Touche Ross, 442 U.S. at 575-76.
Defendants rely upon Salomon v. Roche Compuchem Laboratories, Inc., 909 F.Supp 126 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) in support of their claim that § 40.25(f) (22) (ii) does not provide for a private cause of action. In Salomon, the plaintiff was a flight attendant for American Airlines and brought suit alleging that the defendant violated 49 C.F.R. § 40.37, the regulation governing employee access to drug testing records. The district court concluded that the statute was framed as a general mandate to the Federal Aviation Administration to establish drug testing regulations, not to address the concerns of a specific class of persons. See id. at 128. Other courts have similarly concluded that the regulations promulgated under 49 C.F.R. Part 40 do not provide for a private cause of action. See, e.g., Drake v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 147 F.3d 169, 170-71 (2d Cir. 1998) ( affirming district court's conclusion that plaintiff did not have a private cause of action under 49 C.F.R. Part 40); Schmeling v. NORDAM, 97 F.3d 1336, 1343-44 (10th Cir. 1996) (concluding that 49 C.F.R. § 40.35 did not provide for a private cause of action); Abate v. S. Pacific Transp. Co., 928 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1991) (concluding that Federal Railroad Safety Act provides no private cause of action to enforce regulations implementing federally mandated drug-testing programs set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 40).
This Court similarly concludes that the FOTETA is framed as a general mandateto the Department of Transportation as the regulations promulgated under part 40 are applicable to the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration and Federal Aviation Administration. See 49 C.F.R. § 40.25 (f) (10) (B). This regulatory scheme does not evince a concern for the protection of drivers who believe that they have been aggrieved through the drug testing process. Cf. Drake, 147 F.3d at 170-71; Schmeling, 97 F.3d at 1343-44. Furthermore, federal regulations in and of themselves cannot create a private cause of action unless the action is at least implied from the applicable statute. See Smith v. Dearborn Fin. Servs., Inc., 982 F.2d 976, 979 (6th Cir. 1993). Therefore, this Court holds that the district court properly concluded that the FOTETA or the regulations promulgated thereunder do not imply a private cause of action and properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim.
Plaintiff next argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to his wrongful termination claim under the ADA. The district court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies inasmuch as it found that there was no evidence that Plaintiff had filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC2 . The district court further concluded that even if Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies, there was no genuine issue of fact and Plaintiff's claim could not survive summary judgment. Although this Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to obtain a right-to-sue letter prior to commencing this action was not a jurisdictional defect, but rather a condition precedent which Plaintiff cured, we nevertheless conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment as there was no genuine issue of fact and Plaintiff failed to produce evidence on which a reasonable jury could find that he was terminated in violation of the ADA.
Under the ADA, a claimant who wishes to bring a lawsuit claiming a violation of the ADA must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(e) (1); Jones v. Sumser Ret. Vill., 209 F.3d 851, 853 (6th Cir. 2000). An employee may not file a suit under the ADA if he or she does not possess a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC because he or she has not exhausted his or her remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1); 42 U.S.C. §12117(a) (procedures from § 2000e-5 apply to ADA claims); see also EEOC v. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 F.3d 448, 456 (6th Cir. 1999). However, the failure to obtain a right-to-sue letter is not a jurisdictional defect; rather the right-to-sue letter is a condition precedent. See Rivers v. Barberton Bd. of Educ., 143 F.3d 1029, 1032 (6th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the requirement of obtaining a right-to-sue letter may be waived by the parties or the court. See id. at 1031.
In Portis v. Ohio, 141 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 1998), a plaintiff brought suit against the state of Ohio under Title VII and Ohio state law for sexual discrimination. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's claim without prejudice because the plaintiff had not yet exhausted her administrative remedies because she had not obtained a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and had not filed a charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c) and 29 C.F.R. § 1601.73. See id. at 633. In Portis, the plaintiff received her right-to-sueletter one week after she filed her complaint. On appeal, the State of Ohio argued that plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies was a proper alternative ground upon which to dismiss Plaintiff's claim. See id. at 634. This Court, however, rejected the State of Ohio's contention, stating that " [w]e see no reason to bar [the plaintiff's] claim solely on the grounds of a non-jurisdictional requirement whose brief absence caused Ohio no prejudice in this case." Id. The Court went further to hold that "the proper time for Ohio to raise this argument was between the filing of the lawsuit and [the plaintiff's] receipt of the letter." Id. at 635.
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Plaintiff contends that he was administered a random drug test because his employer perceived him to be a drug user. The ADA provides protection for employees who are erroneously regarded as current illegal drug users.See 42 U.S.C. § 12114(b) (3) (excluding erroneous perception of illegal drug use from being disallowed as a disability under § 12114(a)); Buckley v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 127 F.3d 270, 273 (2d Cir. 1997), vacated en banc on other grounds, 155 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 1998); Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 831-32 (9th Cir. 1995). The erroneous perception of being an illegal drug user is to be treated like any other perception of adisability, and is only considered to be a qualifying disability if the employer actually perceives the disability to substantially limit a major life activity of the employee. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); Nielsen v. Moroni Feed Co., 162 F.3d 604, 611 (10th Cir. 1998); Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 885 (6th Cir. 1996) (acknowledging that to prevail on a perceived disability claim, a "plaintiff must show that the perceived impairment is a substantial limitation on a major life activity").
The term "'substantially limits' means an inability to perform or a significant restriction on the ability to perform as compared to the average person in the general population." Cassidy v. Detroit Edison Co., 138 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) (1)). "'Major life activities' include 'functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."' Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i)).
Generally, in order to succeed on a wrongful discharge claim in violation of public policy under Ohio law, a plaintiff must show that (1) a "clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law;" (2) that "dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff's dismissal would jeopardize the public policy;" (3) " [t]he plaintiff's dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy;" and (4) " [t]he employer lacked overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal."Painter v. Graley, 639 N.E.2d 51, 57 n.8 (Ohio 1994). Absent an Ohio statute expressing Ohio public policy, whether a clear public policy exists is to be determined by the courts of the state of Ohio. See id. at 56.
A petition filed for bankruptcy operates as a stay and is applicable to the continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtor. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1). The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1) stays an "action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title . . . ."
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff claims that he "relie [d] on his Sur-reply(s) to both Mohawk Motors and Austintown ER wherein Plaintiff provided a copy of the EEOC charge and the Right to Sue letter . . . ." (J.A. at 1258.)