Tennessee Captain Loses Alcoholism-PTSD Disability Claim

A Tennessee fire captain who resigned while facing disciplinary charges in 2021, has failed in his bid to claim constructive termination, disability discrimination, and violations of the Family Medical Leave Act. Captain Justin Gilbert, formerly of the Newport Fire Department, claimed that disciplinary charges were brought against him due to his alcoholism, which was worsened by his work-related PTSD.

Captain Gilbert claimed the department failed to accommodate his disabilities, and threatened him with termination leaving him with no alternative but to resign. The complaint also alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Tennessee Public Safety Behavioral Health Act. In a lengthy decision that analyzed each of his allegations, US District Court Judge Thomas A. Varlan rejected all of Captain Gilbert’s arguments [citations and quotation marks removed to facilitate reading]:

• The Court will proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to determine whether a similar dispute exists as to defendant’s demonstration that there was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.
• After carefully reviewing the parties’ evidence, the Court finds that while plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discriminatory termination in violation of the ADA, no reasonable jury could find that defendant lacked a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
• Multiple instances of misconduct leading to written reprimands unquestionably provide an employer with a legitimate basis for adverse employment action, which plaintiff does not appear to dispute in this case.
• Accordingly, the Court moves on to the third and final step of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
• In order to establish pretext, a plaintiff will usually need to show that the employer’s stated reason for the adverse employment action either (1) has no basis in fact, (2) was not the actual reason, or (3) is insufficient to explain the employer’s action.
• After carefully reviewing the parties’ evidence, the Court finds that while plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discriminatory termination in violation of the ADA, no reasonable jury could find that defendant’s cited basis for plaintiff’s termination was pretextual.
• As an initial matter, plaintiff never disclosed his PTSD diagnosis to defendant at any time prior to his resignation; thus, the evidence does not support any inference that defendant’s recommendation for plaintiff’s termination was a pretext for PTSD discrimination.
• As for alcoholism, the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly held that conduct stemming from an employee’s alcoholism may provide an employer with a legitimate basis for firing an employee without violating the ADA.
• The ADA itself expressly contemplates distinguishing the issue of misconduct from one’s status as an alcoholic.
• It strains logic to conclude that alcoholism shields certain inappropriate conduct because while alcoholism might compel plaintiff to drink, it did not compel him to operate a motor vehicle or engage in the other inappropriate conduct reported.
• Because plaintiff fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant’s proffered reason for his termination was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his alcoholism and PTSD, summary judgment should be granted to defendant.
• Plaintiff [next] asserts that defendant failed to engage in the interactive process required under the ADA by not considering and ultimately granting his sought one-year leave for rehabilitative treatment Plaintiff requested leave on September 14, 2021, after both instances of his terminable misconduct occurred.
• Because defendant’s legitimate basis for plaintiff’s termination arose concurrently with his request for accommodation, defendant was not obligated to engage in the interactive process for an employee who was not “otherwise qualified for [his] position, with or without reasonable accommodation.”
• Plaintiff contends that defendant unlawfully interfered with his FMLA leave.
• Under the FMLA, qualified employees are entitled to up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave each year if, among other things, an employee has a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.
• Covered employers are prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of their employees’ rights under the statute.
• Plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim fails for the same reason as his ADA accommodation claim: the leave at issue was requested on September 14, 2021, after his terminable conduct. Therefore, defendant was not obligated to provide leave to an employee who was no longer deemed eligible for his position.
• For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment, DENIES plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, and this case will be DISMISSED.

Here is a copy of the complaint: