Sumie Clark v. Boyd Tunica, Incorporated
665 F. App'x 367
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sumie Clark, a specialty room chef, slipped at work, fractured her ankle, and was treated at a clinic where blood and urine samples were taken under Sam’s Town’s post-injury substance-testing policy.
- Quest Diagnostics reported a negative blood test but a positive urine alcohol result (.12%); Sam’s Town fired Clark under its policy (which had consistently terminated employees testing positive since 2009).
- Clark denied alcohol use, claimed she never drank, and suggested her diabetes medication (metformin) or other factors could explain the urine result; Quest investigated and reported no alternative explanation.
- Clark’s ankle was treated conservatively; she was ambulatory within weeks and fully healed within five months of the accident.
- Clark sued under the ADA, alleging she was terminated because of her fractured ankle (a disability); the district court granted summary judgment for Sam’s Town, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark’s fractured ankle qualified as a "disability" under the ADA | Clark: ADA Amendments broaden disability definition; temporary but function-limiting impairments can qualify | Sam’s Town: Even under the ADAAA, only sufficiently severe temporary impairments qualify; Clark’s injury was not severe enough | Court: Did not decide definitively; assumed arguendo disability but affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether Sam’s Town’s proffered reason for termination (positive urine alcohol) was pretext for disability discrimination | Clark: Positive test was unreliable / could be caused by metformin; employer used result to get rid of her because of her injury | Sam’s Town: Relied reasonably on Quest’s testing and lab scientist; policy uniformly enforced; legitimate non-discriminatory reason | Court: No genuine fact issue of pretext; employer’s reasonable reliance on lab results defeats pretext claim |
| Whether Clark was treated differently than other employees who tested positive | Clark: Employer knew she did not drink and treated her unfairly | Sam’s Town: Policy applied consistently; all positives led to termination since 2009 | Court: No evidence of disparate treatment; consistent enforcement supports employer |
| Whether mixed-motives theory saves Clark’s claim | Clark: (argued below) employer had mixed motives | Sam’s Town: Disputed applicability; lack of supporting evidence | Court: Clark waived mixed-motives on appeal (briefed in a footnote); outcome would be same even if considered |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- EEOC v. LHC Group, Inc., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir.) (application of McDonnell Douglas in ADA context)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (employer may terminate for lawful, non-discriminatory reasons)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.) (pretext and disparate treatment standards)
- Waggoner v. City of Garland, 987 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir.) (employer’s reasonable belief in accusation is dispositive for pretext inquiry)
- Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc., 407 F.3d 332 (5th Cir.) (mixed-motives and proof standard)