Opinion ID: 71900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the historical and procedural facts

Text: Clifford Brisentine worked as an electrician in various small commercial, residential, and industrial settings for more than ten years. In 1992, he fell off a scaffold at work and injured his back. After surgery, he underwent a rehabilitation process called work hardening to facilitate his return to work. In November 1993, Brisentine's doctor released him to return to work, but restricted him from lifting more than 30 to 45 pounds and from repetitive bending and stooping. Getting on the payroll at Stone & Webster at TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant is a two part process. The first step requires that a union refer an individual for an opening at Stone & Webster. Once referred by the union, the individual becomes a probationary employee. Such designation pulls the individual under the umbrella of the Agreement and provides him with all rights and liabilities appertaining thereunto. The second step requires that the individual meet [the] requirements for ... clearance. See Agreement, Art. III, K. That is, the individual must file a formal application with Stone & Webster and meet the job specifications in order for Stone & Webster to formally hire the individual and put him on the payroll. Although an individual whose application is rejected is not hired, under the technical terms of the Agreement, that individual is terminated from employment with Stone & Webster, because he is considered a probationary employee. In early May 1994, Brisentine's union, the IBEW, referred him for an industrial electrician position with Stone & Webster at TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. When Brisentine filed his application with Stone & Webster, he indicated that he was unable to engage in heavy lifting or repetitive bending and stooping. Shortly after that, Brisentine was informed that his application was rejected and he was terminated because of those disabilities. Tom Dougherty, a labor relations manager at Stone & Webster, reaffirmed to Brisentine later that day that he was terminated because of his disabilities. Brisentine told Dougherty that he believed he could do the job, because he had recently worked as an electrician at another nuclear power plant. Dougherty refused to reconsider his decision and explained that he just couldn't take the chance of [Brisentine's] getting hurt on [the] job. Immediately following his termination, Brisentine contacted an IBEW union representative about filing a grievance under the procedures set out in the Agreement. The IBEW representative told Brisentine that, because his dispute with the S & W centered around his disability, he would be better off filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) instead of pursuing his claim through the grievance procedure. Brisentine took that advice; he filed a complaint with the EEOC; and he never filed a grievance. After receiving his right to sue letter from the EEOC, Brisentine filed this lawsuit. In his complaint, Brisentine alleged that Stone & Webster had violated the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., by terminating him because of his disability and failing to make a reasonable accommodation for it. Stone & Webster sought summary judgment on a number of grounds. However, the district court addressed only Brisentine's alleged failure to file a grievance pursuant to the procedures set forth under the Agreement and then submit that grievance to binding arbitration. Because he had failed to do so, the court dismissed actions.