Opinion ID: 1439056
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of the Contributing Factor Analysis

Text: Having found that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Daugherty has an MHRA-protected disability and the capacity to perform his job, this Court must now assess whether his claim survives summary judgment because there are genuine issues as to whether his perceived disability was a contributing factor in the City's termination decision. The City maintains that it asked Daugherty to submit to a fitness for duty examination after his increasing absenteeism caused concerns that he was unable to perform the duties of a front-line officer. The City attempts to argue that Daugherty was rightfully terminated due to his poor pattern of attendance, but he alleges facts showing that it originally informed him that he was terminated only because his fitness for duty evaluations indicated he was incapable of performing front-line officer duties. Daugherty's taped conversation with Chief O'Connor mentions a discussion between Chief O'Connor and the City's attorney about getting Daugherty off the street by putting him in an administration position only. His evidence showed that he was encouraged to take disability retirement to avoid losing his job as police captain. [13] The record also supports his complaint that he was the only similarly-situated officer to be sent for a fitness for duty examination. [14] Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to Daugherty, as the standard of review requires, the record supports a finding that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Daugherty was wrongly singled out for a fitness for duty evaluation and whether his perceived disability was a contributing factor in the City's decision to terminate him.