Opinion ID: 160478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CommunityCare's Actions with respect to Don Sigmon

Text: 7 On June 17, 1997, pursuant to its drug testing policy, Tulsa ordered Sigmon to submit to a random urinalyses to screen for drugs and alcohol. Soon thereafter, a doctor employed by Tulsa notified Sigmon that he had tested positive for marijuana, and Sigmon's supervisor, Don McGlory (McGlory), enrolled him in Tulsa's EAP. Sigmon concedes that he had smoked marijuana the evening before he took the test. 8 As an initial step in entering Tulsa's EAP, Sigmon and McGlory both signed a Post-Rehabilitation Drug and Alcohol Testing Agreement dated June 18, 1997 (the Post-Rehabilitation Agreement). The Post- Rehabilitation Agreement contains Sigmon's promise, as a condition of his continued employment, to undergo periodic additional drug testing. Further, Sigmon acknowledged that any unsatisfactory cooperation, compliance or attendance with the Employee Assistance Program's contract provider . . . will result in the initiation of pretermination procedures and disciplinary action. 9 After signing the Post-Rehabilitation Agreement, Sigmon was sent to see Godi at CommunityCare for assessment and referral to treatment. Godi referred him to an intensive six-week substance abuse treatment program provided by Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital (Laureate) which was based on a 12-Step program of recovery. A devout Christian, Sigmon was offended by the program's references to a self-defined higher power instead of the traditional Judeo-Christian figures of God and Jesus Christ, but he nevertheless completed his initial course of treatment. 10 After Sigmon completed Laureate's initial intensive treatment program, Godi and a Laureate counselor met with Sigmon and McGlory to inform Sigmon that he was being referred for an additional one-year course of follow-up treatment. Godi presented Sigmon with a form entitled Return to Duty/Post Treatment Agreement (Return to Duty Agreement) that: (1) required Sigmon to undergo a continuing care program at Laureate and to attend a minimum of two meetings per week for a period of one year of either Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA); (2) stated Sigmon understood . . . that failure to comply with its terms may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of [his] employment; and (3) incorporated the grievance and arbitration procedures of Tulsa's collective bargaining agreement to settle disputes arising under the Return to Duty Agreement. Laureate's AA and NA programs are both based on a 12-Step method and advance religious ideas similar to those expressed in Laureate's more intensive program. 11 Both Sigmon and McGlory refused to sign the agreement, and Sigmon heatedly objected to the religious content of the programs. Sigmon alleges that Godi mentioned termination at least twice during this meeting. Godi stated in his deposition that he told Sigmon it was his duty to report Sigmon's refusal to comply with the EAP to Tulsa, and concedes he might have told Sigmon his report could prompt Tulsa to begin pretermination proceedings pursuant to the Post-Rehabilitation Agreement Sigmon had entered into with Tulsa. 12 Godi reported Sigmon's refusal to attend AA and NA meetings to Tulsa's human resources department and participated in a meeting with McGlory and several members of Tulsa's human resources department to discuss possible disciplinary actions against Sigmon. The record shows that Godi may have recommended Sigmon be terminated in the interest of maintaining consistency in Tulsa's drug and alcohol disciplinary actions. 13 Based on this meeting, McGlory told Sigmon that he had a choice of either attending the meetings, facing termination hearings, or submitting to a formal reprimand and a 30-day suspension from his job. Sigmon continued in his refusal to attend the meetings, and the City began the paperwork necessary to institute hearings leading to Sigmon's possible termination. In response, Sigmon filed the present lawsuit.