Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fluor Federal Global Projects, Inc.
6:22-cv-01960
D.S.C.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Dave Hall was employed by Fluor Federal Global Projects, Inc. (FFGP) as a Senior MWR Technician for a project in Afghanistan under a Department of Defense (DoD) contract requiring compliance with specific medical fitness-for-duty standards (MOD 13).
- Hall was diagnosed with prostate cancer, underwent surgery, and received medical clearance from his doctor to return to work in August 2019, but FFGP (via its third-party medical contractor, Occucare) found him medically disqualified under MOD 13, which required cancer remission for at least one year.
- Hall was terminated after being medically disqualified and attempted to be considered for reassignment within the company but was told they had to follow Occucare’s determination.
- Hall filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, which determined there was reason to believe the ADA had been violated. The EEOC and Hall filed suits, alleging intentional discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting in part and denying in part, but the District Court modified the findings, especially as to the disparate-treatment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies | Hall's charge sufficiently named all Fluor entities under the substantial identity exception. | Hall failed to exhaust remedies against two entities not specifically named in the EEOC charge. | Sufficient exhaustion; substantial identity exception applies. |
| Disparate-Treatment Discrimination (ADA) | Hall was terminated due to his disability; the policy screens out disabled persons. | Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: contractually-required fitness standards were applied. | For Defendants; legitimate reason, no evidence of pretext. |
| Disparate Impact Theory | (Not pled—Plaintiffs clarified only disparate treatment is at issue.) | Magistrate Judge improperly analyzed disparate-impact factors. | Disparate impact not at issue; Raytheon controls analysis. |
| Failure to Accommodate | Hall requested reassignment within company, which should be considered a reasonable accommodation. | No accommodation request was made; no reassignment obligation for non-qualifying position. | For Hall; material disputes remain over accommodation and reassignment. |
| Disability Status (Record of Impairment) | Cancer diagnosis and surgery establish a record of impairment under the ADA. | No substantial limitation of major life activity proven; at best, genuine issue of fact only. | Material fact dispute exists; not for summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (explains standard of review for Magistrate recommendations)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary judgment standard requires viewing facts in light most favorable to non-movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (defines materiality and genuineness for summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting for discrimination claims)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (clarifies distinction between disparate-impact and disparate-treatment under the ADA)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (protected traits must actually motivate employment decision for disparate treatment)
- Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d 266 (sets forth ADA prima facie case for wrongful discharge)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment process and burden shifting)