Samson v. City of Naples
2:18-cv-00274
| M.D. Fla. | Jun 27, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Richard Samson, an insulin-treated diabetic, applied for a City of Naples mechanic position and received a conditional offer contingent on passing a DOT physical.
- Samson holds a Florida CDL under a state intrastate diabetes exemption but failed the DOT exam at Advance Medical Center due to diabetes and a reported recent hypoglycemic episode; the City rescinded the offer.
- Samson sued under the ADA and Florida Civil Rights Act for failure to hire/disability discrimination; both parties moved for summary judgment and Samson moved to strike a City declaration.
- The City required DOT physicals for all mechanics and treated failure of the DOT exam as dispositive for safety reasons; Samson disputes the hypoglycemic event and contends the City did not perform an individualized assessment or consider state CDL exemption.
- The court denied the motion to strike McCullers’ declaration, found genuine disputes on (1) whether test-driving is an essential function and whether Samson can perform it with or without accommodation, and (2) whether the DOT exam constituted a job-related, business-necessity qualification standard or an impermissible screening device.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether test-driving is an essential function of the mechanic job | Samson: driving is not necessarily essential and he can perform duties or obtain exemption | City: test-driving is essential, listed in job spec, performed frequently, and necessary for safety | Court: test-driving is an essential function (fact-intensive analysis favors City) |
| Whether Samson is a "qualified individual" who can perform essential functions with/without reasonable accommodation | Samson: he can test-drive, has a CDL, and could use an exemption or other accommodation | City: Samson failed DOT physical and thus cannot meet the qualification requirement | Court: genuine dispute exists whether Samson can test-drive without accommodation; summary judgment inappropriate for City on this element |
| Whether rescission based on DOT failure was a legitimate, non-discriminatory business-necessity action | Samson: DOT test was not job-related here, City did not perform individualized assessment, so action was pretextual discrimination | City: safety concerns from DOT failure are a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to rescind offer | Court: genuine dispute whether DOT exam was job-related/business necessity and whether City performed individualized assessment; City failed to carry burden at summary judgment |
| Validity of City affirmative defenses (good faith, business necessity, failure to mitigate, unqualified, proximate cause) | Samson: defenses fail as a matter of law or lack evidentiary support | City: defenses are fact questions or proper denials of prima facie elements | Court: denied Samson’s partial summary judgment; genuine disputes remain on these defenses or they are treated as denials |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment genuine-dispute standard)
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (ADA essential-function factors analysis)
- Samson v. Fed. Express Corp., 746 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir.) (DOT exam as potential impermissible qualification standard for diabetics)
- B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. Wilson, 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.) (employer’s burden in articulating non-discriminatory reason)
- Flowers v. Troup County, Ga., Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir.) (employer can act for many reasons absent discriminatory motive)
- Toole v. Metal Services, LLC, 17 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (S.D. Ala.) (dispute over job-related nature of DOT physical and type of driving essential)