264 F. Supp. 3d 1247
N.D. Ala.2017Background
- Hill worked as a teller (Branch Banker III) at BB&T’s Oxford branch; she had gallbladder surgery on Sept. 24, 2014, and took FMLA leave through Oct. 5, 2014, but alleges managerial pressure to shorten and return early from leave.
- After surgery Hill experienced persistent diarrhea and increased need for restroom access; she requested not to be assigned to the drive-through and gave a doctor’s note explaining frequent bathroom use.
- Hill contends she was thereafter disproportionately assigned to the drive-through (where restroom access was less convenient), was passed over for a promotion, received an ICE exception, and was terminated for allegedly "force balancing" a drawer on Dec. 11, 2014.
- BB&T maintains the drive-through assignments were valid, the branch needed a bilingual hire for promotion, ICE exceptions are non-disciplinary, and force balancing is a terminable offense supported by Hill’s signed statement and internal investigation.
- Procedurally, BB&T moved for summary judgment on Hill’s ADA (discrimination and failure to accommodate), FMLA (interference and retaliation), and state tort claims (invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress); the court granted summary judgment on ADA claims and state torts but denied summary judgment as to FMLA interference and certain retaliation theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill’s post-op diarrhea is an ADA disability | Hill: episodic/temporary but substantially limits bowel function (major life activity) and thus is a disability under the ADAAA | BB&T: condition was temporary/insufficient to be a disability; Hill admitted she was not disabled at deposition | Court: triable issue exists; under ADAAA episodic bowel dysfunction can qualify as a disability |
| ADA disparate treatment (termination, reassignment, failure to promote, hostile work environment) | Hill: termination, disproportionate drive-through assignments, and failure to promote were due to disability | BB&T: legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (force balancing termination; need for bilingual hire; scheduling explanations); many complained acts are not adverse | Court: summary judgment for BB&T on ADA disparate treatment (Hill failed to show causation/pretext for termination and no convincing mosaic) |
| ADA failure to accommodate (reassignment or restroom breaks) | Hill: needed reassignment from drive-through or permission for frequent restroom breaks as reasonable accommodations | BB&T: allowed relief procedures; Hill left drive-through twice without discipline; no evidence she was prevented from restroom access | Court: summary judgment for BB&T — no genuine issue that reasonable accommodation was denied |
| FMLA interference and retaliation | Hill: supervisors pressured her to shorten/delay FMLA leave and then retaliated via scheduling and denial of promotion/termination | BB&T: scheduling/promotions/termination were for legitimate reasons unrelated to FMLA (or nondiscriminatory business reasons) | Court: summary judgment denied as to FMLA interference (credibility dispute re: pressure to shorten leave) and denied as to retaliation for reassignment and failure-to-promote theories; granted as to retaliation based on termination (legitimate reason: force balancing) |
| Invasion of privacy (disclosure of medical info to coworkers/prospective employers) | Hill: supervisors publicly discussed her condition and told prospective employers; disclosure was highly offensive and not of public concern | BB&T: Hill had discussed her condition with coworkers; Hill lacks admissible evidence that BB&T told prospective employers | Court: summary judgment for BB&T — disclosures were not a protected private fact here and no admissible proof of disclosures to prospective employers |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage) | Hill: hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and disclosure support an outrage claim | BB&T: conduct did not meet Alabama’s extreme-outrage standard | Court: summary judgment for BB&T — record does not show conduct "beyond all possible bounds of decency" |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 498 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2007) (elements of ADA disparate-treatment claim)
- Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2000) (definition of a qualified individual under the ADA)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden of proof on issues of fact)
- Summers v. Altarum Inst., Corp., 740 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2014) (temporary or episodic impairments can be disabilities under the ADAAA)
- Mazzeo v. Color Resolutions Int’l, LLC, 746 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2014) (ADAAA instructs broader coverage for disability determinations)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (tangible employment actions and the significance of economic harm in adverse action analysis)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (standard for hostile work environment severity and impact)