Plaintiff’s admission that he failed to secure a prison control room door, thereby creating an opportunity for an inmate to gain access to the control room, mandates dismissal of plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims.
The plaintiff asserted violations of the ADA and the FMLA following his termination from employment as a prison guard. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he requested and took leave for depression and that, when he returned to work, he was subjected to harassment by a prison chief. Several months following his return from leave, the plaintiff was assigned to the control room in the area of the prison that housed the “worst-of-the-worst inmates” and was involved in an incident where an inmate was able to gain access to the control room and make contact with a correctional officer—despite the prison’s policy that the doors remain locked at all times. The incident was captured on the prison’s surveillance system and was investigated. The investigations supervisor noted that, “Leaving a control room door unlocked, even if an officer is inside, constitutes a violation of policy that is a terminable offense.” The Deputy Warden reviewed the investigative report and surveillance video and recommended to the Warden that the plaintiff’s employment be terminated.
In rejecting the plaintiff’s claims of discrimination, the court noted that “[n]othing in the evidence suggests that [the chief]—who, according to plaintiff, bore him some discriminatory animus—initiated, recommended, and ultimately caused plaintiff’s termination.” Rather, the court determined that the decision was clearly initiated by the investigations supervisor, with a recommendation for termination by the Deputy Warden, “neither of whom had any demonstrable knowledge of plaintiff’s impairment or request for leave.” In so holding, the court further reasoned that the plaintiff “did not identify any situations where control room doors were left unlocked on the SMU, an inmate gained entry to the control room, the offending officer used force to remove that inmate, and the entire incident was captured on video.” As a result, the court determined that, “given the overwhelming evidence that leaving a control room door open was itself a terminable offense” and the lack of “any mitigating circumstances to warrant a deviation from that policy,” the plaintiff failed to establish a pretext of discrimination.
Case Law Alert, 1st Quarter 2014