United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MATTHEW W. BRANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Jonathan Bamat brings wrongful discharge and disability
discrimination claims against his former employer, Glenn O.
Hawbaker, Inc. Hawbaker moved for summary judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
Jonathan
Bamat was hired by Glenn O. Hawbaker as a survey assistant in
the summer of 2018.[1] Bamat has bipolar disorder.[2] He takes
medication for this condition and previously received
treatment at a voluntary in-patient center.[3] Upon his hiring,
Bamat indicated on a voluntary self-identification of
disability form that he had bipolar disorder and
schizophrenia, though he has been diagnosed with only the
former.[4]
Bamat
was working on-site on August 8, 2018, when he reported to
his supervisor that his head hurt.[5] His supervisor observed
bruising behind Bamat's right ear, which Bamat believed
was the result of an insect bite.[6] In this initial conversation
with his supervisor, Bamat discussed his intention to seek
worker's compensation benefits.[7] On his supervisor's
suggestion, Bamat spoke with the triage nurse and went home,
and then missed work the next day, reporting to his
supervisor that he felt dizzy and unwell.[8] On August 10,
2018, Bamat felt better and returned to work.[9]
Bamat's
supervisor in turn told his boss, Harry Mills, about
Bamat's injury on August 8.[10] On August 9, 2018, Mills
called Kristi Liptak, Hawbaker's EEO officer, to discuss
Bamat.[11] Liptak took notes on this conversation
that indicated that Mills believed Bamat was “scheming
for compensation.”[12] Her notes also say the word
“schizophrenic” and, under that, “wants to
get rid of him before something happens.”[13]
On
August 13, 2018, Bamat urinated along the side of a haul road
at a work site, standing between opened front and rear
passenger doors of a truck to maintain some modicum of
privacy.[14] In spite of this, he was seen by at
least two coworkers.[15]
His
supervisor immediately issued a verbal warning, and the
project superintendent instructed the supervisor to issue
Bamat a written warning.[16] While at the job site office, the
supervisor spoke to John Wert, the project manager, over the
phone about the incident.[17] Wert informed the supervisor
that he would personally address the issue
himself.[18] Wert spoke with Liptak, Mills, and
Michele Foust from Human Resources, and then he fired
Bamat.[19]
Bamat
filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre
County, Pennsylvania, on September 4, 2018. Hawbaker filed a
notice of removal to this Court on September 27, 2018. Bamat
filed the operative amended complaint on July 29, 2019. On
September 3, 2019, Hawbaker moved for summary judgment.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Summary
judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.”[20] “Facts that could alter the
outcome are ‘material facts,' and disputes are
‘genuine' if evidence exists from which a rational
person could conclude that the position of the person with
the burden of proof on the disputed issue is
correct.”[21]“A defendant meets this standard
when there is an absence of evidence that rationally supports
the plaintiff's case.”[22]
B.
Bamat's Claims
Bamat
claims relief on two grounds. First, he claims that he was
wrongfully discharged for saying that he planned to seek
worker's compensation. Second, he claims that Hawbaker
discriminated against him on the basis of a disability. Both
wrongful discharge and disability discrimination claims apply
the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
framework.[23] In the test's three steps, the
plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case;
second, the defendant must identify a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action;
and third, the plaintiff must show that a rational factfinder
could conclude that the defendant's stated reason was a
pretext for discrimination.[24]
The
prima facie case for wrongful discharge has three
elements: (1) the plaintiff engaged in protected activity,
(2) his employer took an adverse employment action against
him, and (3) there must be a causal nexus between his
protected activity and the adverse employment
action.[25] The prima facie case for
disability discrimination also has three elements: (1) the
plaintiff is a disabled person within the meaning of the
ADAAA, (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions
of the job, and (3) he suffered an adverse employment
decision as a result of discrimination.[26]
Hawbaker
contends that Bamat cannot identify evidence in the record
supporting the causal elements of either prima facie
case or that their stated nondiscriminatory reason for firing
him (urinating at a worksite) was a pretext for
discrimination. I respectfully disagree for the reasons that
follow.
C.
Analysis
On
August 9, 2018, Bamat's supervisor Harry Mills spoke on
the phone with Kristi Liptak in Human Resources. Liptak's
notes on this conversation are in the record.[27] According to
the notes, Mills believed Bamat was “scheming for
compensation.”[28] Another heading says
“schizophrenic.”[29] Under that heading, it says
“wants to get rid of him before something
happens.”[30] Four days later, without any prior
warnings or reprimands, Bamat became the only Hawbaker
employee in at least five years to be fired or disciplined in
any way for urinating at a worksite.[31]Then, when Mills and
Liptak were separately deposed about their August 9
conversation, they gave contradictory accounts of
it.[32]
This is
certainly enough to satisfy a prima facie causation
burden on summary judgment. The notes support a direct
connection between Bamat's firing and both his
disability[33] and his expressed desire to seek
worker's compensation. Additionally, the close temporal
...