Matelyan v. Sage Dining Services, No. 8:2010cv02626 - Document 81 (D. Md. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 8/24/2012. (ebs2, Deputy Clerk)(c/m by chambers 8/24/2012)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
_FII.ED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND _LOGGED ",-"' * * Plaintiff, BY * v. * * SAGE DINING SERVICES, Inc. I.t.=. ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢.L.;'c. ¢... AUG 2.4 20.;2 ... * KIRK D. MA TEL YAN ..~ __ OI.P Civil No. PJM 10-2626 * * Defendant. * MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro Se Plaintiff Kirk Matelyan has sued his former employer, SAGE Dining Services, Inc. ("SAGE"), alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.c. 12111 ef seq., S in connection with his termination as SAGE's Food Service Director. \ On October 6, 201 I, SAGE filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Paper No. 48], which the Court denied without prejudice, extending discovery until February 21, 2012 and directing SAGE to file another dispositive motion thirty days thereafter. SAGE has timely filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [Paper No. 63]. For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT SAGE's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.2 I. SAGE is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of providing food service management to private schools, colleges, and businesses. Kirk Matelyan worked at SAGE as a Food Service Director from December 2005 until he was discharged on October 13,2006. While at SAGE, Matelyan was assigned to manage food service operations at Saint John's I Matelyan also alleged various state law claims, which the Court dismissed in a Memorandum Order issued on January 18,20 I I. The case proceeded solely as to his ADA claim. ] On April 30, 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum Order denying Matelyan's request to extend discovery and to compel the production of various documents [Paper No. 72]. Matelyan has filed a Motion to Reconsider [Paper No. 76 J and a Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery [Paper No. 77]. For the same reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Order of April 30, the motions are DENIED. 00'\fTY College High School in Washington, Graduate Studies in Linthicum payroll reports, performed D.C., and later at the Maritime Heights, Maryland. sales activities, He managed Institute of Technology food service employees, managed client accounts, and filed secured funds received, and made bank deposits on behalf of SAGE. According highly energetic to the job description and possesses, culinary knowledge, SAGE's among other qualities, organizational primary representative including literacy. on campus and is responsible include overseeing managing strong leadership skills, and computer catering, retail service, production, responsibilities operations, provided by SAGE, a Food Service Director must be a sanitation, the production job description, lbs. or less continuously, and client relations. effort occasionally," objects with moderate finger manipulation, All SAGE employees, company's including detailed cash-handling policy. 20 He or [with] [m]aximum up to 8 hours per day," Finally, he or she "must be able to objects with close hand-eye and/or arm coordination turning, reaching up, wrist turning/torqueing As set forth lift objects weighing efforts frequently, "be able to sit and/or stand 4 hours continuously, perform motor skills such as grasping, To perform these [and] 50 lbs. or more occasionally." and to "remain on [his or her] feet for [the] entire shift." manipulate The job and marketing physical requirements. he or she "must be able to properly 35 Ibs. or less frequently, she must also "be able to push/pull for all aspects of the account, process, merchandising the staff, financial management, abilities, A Food Service Director is and financial performance. duties, a Food Service Director must meet certain minimum in the company's and managing for [the] entire shift, [and] to bending, reaching out, twisting, continuously." a Food Service Director, must comply with the SAGE requires those in charge of handling bank deposits to make "one deposit that exactly equals the amount of cash sales of the day." 2 This policy ensure that "large quantities weekend," thereby reducing According of cash" are not "stored in the units overnight the risk of theft and other attendant to Matelyan, ¢ from Dr. Peter Stengel, who on September ruptured disc." instructed Dr. Stengel prescribed Matelyan medical condition, permitted "wasn't hazards . on August 26, 2006 he injured his neck and back while assisting banquet staff in the removal of dining room tables weighing attention Percocet, 50 to 75 pounds. 27,2006 diagnosed Methylprednisolone, asked his supervisor, to take time off or to get assistance from other employees. however, SAGE's attention accounting excessive Rodriguez, material" Matelyan's policy. could "leave the unit during department investigated the issue and discovered to discharge failure to follow cash-handling procedures was brought to about their checks not being cashed. amount of cash and checks to accumulate made the decision alone. failed to make daily deposits of cash His breach of cash-handling by parents who complained Given his never availed himself of this accommodation During the first two weeks of October, Matelyan by company and When he told Elstad that he because he did not think it was "safe" to leave the other employees sales as required a week later. or he was taking, she refused to assign someone else to make the bank deposits and instead said Matelyan Matelyan, him with a "bulging Rachel Elstad, for help, but he was not in good shape to drive" because of the medication the day to make the deposits." He sought medical and Chlorzoxazone to refrain from working until his next appointment Matelyan or over a Matelyan procedures. that Matelyan on site. SAGE's The had allowed an General Counsel, Christina after she learned of his "serious and On October 13,2006, SAGE terminated employment. Dr. Stengel prepared a medical report "for Matelyan that he would still be under certain "permanent" restrictions 3 on February 1,2007, which stated if he returned to work. Specifically, Dr. Stengel advised that Matelyan would be unable to lift more than five pounds, to remain standing for more than one hour, or to engage in repetitive although his condition In December discriminated reasonable 2006, Matelyan accommodations. Matelyan to this Court. stooping or climbing, after spinal surgery." filed a complaint against him on the basis of a disability Rights Letter. removed might "improve bending, with the EEOC, alleging that SAGE and retaliated against him for requesting On January 29, 2010, the EEOC issued a Dismissal subsequently and Notice of filed suit against SAGE in state court, which SAGE The Court now considers SAGE's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. II. "The court shall grant summary judgment dispute as to ai1y material R. CIV. P. 56(a). fact and the movant is entitled to judgment The court must "view the evidence non movant, and draw all reasonable assessing 639,644-45 if the movant shows that there is no genuine the witnesses' credibility." (4th Cir. 2002). inferences as a matter of law." in the light most favorable in his favor without weighing FED. to ... the the evidence or Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d The court, however, must also abide by the "'affirmative of the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses obligation from proceeding to trial. '" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 526 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Drewill v. Prall, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993)). supported motion for summary judgment [his] pleadings, trial." may not rest upon the mere allegations a properly or denials of but rather must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for ld. at 522 (alteration mere existence "A party opposing of a "'scintilla in original) (internal quotation of evidelice'" marks and citation omitted). The is not enough to frustrate a motion for summary 4 Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting judgment. Phillips v; CSX Transp., Inc., 190 F.3d 285, 187 (4th Cir. 1999)). Summary judgment appropriate "unless there is sufficient a verdict for that party." facts sufficient party for a jury to return are "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), they "must still set forth to withstand F. Supp. 2d 478,480 favoring the nonmoving Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Although pro se pleadings drafted by lawyers," evidence is Symeonidis v. Paxton Capital Grp., Inc., 220 summary judgment." n. 4 (D. Md. 2002) (citations omitted). III. Matelyan Matelyan's in violation of the ADA. claim fails as a matter of law because his injuries disqualified the essential therefore alleges that he was terminated functions of his position, outside the protective with or without a reasonable scope of the ADA. not fired because of his disability, Furthermore, SAGE responds that him from performing accommodation, and he was SAGE argues, Matelyan but because of his failure to follow SAGE's was cash-handling policy. The ADA provides that "[n]o covered entity shall discriminate individual on the basis of disability advancement, conditions, or discharge of employees, and privileges discriminatory discharge, employee of employment." Matelyan (2) that he was discharged; level that met his employer's discharge in regard to job application raise a reasonable procedures, compensation, 42 U.S.C. 9 against a qualified 12112(a). the hiring, job training, To succeed on his claim for must show (I) that he is within the ADA's (3) that at the time of his discharge legitimate inference expectations; of unlawful 5 and other terms, protected he was performing and (4) that the circumstances discrimination. class; the job at a of his Haulbrook v. Michelin North America, 252 F.3d 696, 702 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Ennis v. Nat 'I Ass'n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, 53 F.3d 55, 58 (4th Cir. 1995)). A. SAGE's otherwise first contends that Matelyan qualified individual is not protected by the ADA because he was not an able to perform the essential functions agrees and finds that Matelyan of his position. has failed to sustain his burden as to this essential The Court elem'ent of his claim. To fall within the ADA's who, with or without reasonable employment Motion for Summary within the meaning of the ADA. the essential relationship employer functions class, Matelyan accommodation, position that such individual of its Renewed 'perform protected can perform the esseniial holds or desires." Judgment, must show that he is "an individual 42 U.S.c. SAGE has conceded The Court must decide, therefore, S functions of the 12111 (8) .. For purposes that Matelyan "( 1) whether was disabled [he] could of the job, i.e., functions that bear more than a marginal to the job at issue,' and (2) ifnot, whether 'any reasonable would enable [him] to perform those functions.'" accommodation by the Tyndall v. Nat 'I Educ. Ors., Inc. of Cal(j'ornia, 31 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, Evidence of what functions are essential includes, 1393~94 (5th Cir. 1993)). the employer's prepared judgment before advertising the job performing function. as to which functions or interviewing the function, are essential, applicants or the consequences among other things, the written job descriptions for the job, the amount of time spent on of not requiring the person to perform the Fleetwood v. Harford Sys., Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 688, 698-99 (D. Md. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. ~ 1630.2(n)(3)). 6 Here, SAGE's that the employee continuously Matelyan written job description for Food Service Director included the requirement be able to lift and carry objects over twenty pounds and to sit and/or stand for four hours, up to eight hours per day. The medical records show that, after injured his neck and back on August 26, 2006, he could no longer lift more than five pounds or remain in a standing position for longer than one hour. These "permanent" prevented him from performing some of the job functions being able to lift objects 20 pounds or less continuously, SAGE deems essential, next whether "any reasonable accommodation" by SAGE would to perform the essential function of a Food Service Director. provides that reasonable modified has offered no evidence to are not in fact essential. The Court considers have enabled Matelyan including to sit or stand four hours continuously, and to perform motor skills like bending and twisting .. Matelyan show that these functions work schedules" restrictions accommodations may include "job restructuring," or "reassignment to a vacant position." 42 U.S.C. S or 121 11(9)(B). An accommodation that requires the elimination not reasonable. Champ v. Baltimore Cnty., 884 F. Supp. 991, 999 (D. Md. 1995) (citing Hall v. .u.s. Postal or reallocation "part-time The ADA of an essential job duty, however, Serv., 857 F.2d 1073, 1078 (6th Cir. 1988); see also Crabill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 423 F. App'x 314, 323 (4th Cir. 2011) (noting that employers compelled is to "reallocate (internal quotation essential job functions marks and citation omitted); 687 (4th Cir. 1997) (observing workers to perform an essential condition' permanent light duty") Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 104 F.3d 683, that the ADA does not require an employer function ofa disabled employee's ADA does "not require an employer correct [aJ disabling or assign an employee are not to give a disabled employee that renders him unqualified." 7 to hire additional position). 'an indefinite Furthermore, the period of time to Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. f!ealrh Sciences, 669 F.3d 454, 465 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 280 (4th Cir. 1995)). The undisputed record shows that, for an indefinite period of time, Matelyan was unable to lift weights heavier than five pounds, to stand for prolonged perform basic motor skills like bending-essential accommodation would have permitted functions of his job. Matelyan periods of time, or No reasonable to perform these functions of a Food Service Director.3 Since Matelyan protected has failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he falls within the ADA's class, SAGE is entitled to summary judgment. B. Even if Matelyan could show that he is within the ADA's protected would still fail because he has presented of his disability, no evidence to establish that he was terminated rather than due to his failure to follow SAGE's The law is clear that an individual's termination for that individual disability cash-handling must be "a motivating to recover under the ADA. for misconduct is generally disabled and nondisabled discrimination lawful if it results from "application individuals 192 F.3d at 468 n.6. The ADA, it bears repeating, Indeed, an individual Director. J confined to light sedentary cause" of the under the is related to a disability . adverse action against disabled of a neutral rule that applies to alike," unless application and that the true reason for [a plaintiffs] policies. Persons protected even if the misconduct . lei. at 465 (citing Martinson, 104 F.3d at 686 n.3). In particular, individuals because Halpern, 669 F.3d at 462 (quoting Baird ex rei. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 468-69 (4th Cir.1999)). ADA may be lawfully discharged class, his claim of the rule "was a pretext for exclusion was h[is] disability." protects disabled individuals Baird, from. work could not handle the many critical jobs of a Food Service 8 discrimination because of their disability, not from adverse employment actions in general. 42 U.S.c. ~ 12112(a). Matelyan concedes daily bank deposits, that he violated SAGE's cash-handling which was the sole ground SAGE gave for discharging shows that Rodriguez made the final decision to terminate ;'serious and material" breach of company department investigation, prompted cash-handling by complaints Matelyan procedures Matelyan violation policy-was the reason for his discharge.4 record to suggest that Rodriguez was even aware of his injuries. evidence that the cash-handling such a showing, his termination him. The record after she learned of his from an internal accounting from parents who told SAGE that their checks had not been cashed. of company policy by failing to make does not proffer any evidence to suggest that his disability-not In fact, there is nothing in the Matelyan also provides no policy was applied to him in a discriminatory does not permit a reasonable inference fashion.5 of discrimination, Absent another reason why his ADA claim cannot survive summary judgment. IV. For the foregoing Judgment reasons, the Court GRANTS SAGE's [Paper No. 63]. Final Judgment Renewed Motion for Summary will be entered in favor of SAGE and the case will be CLOSED. Matelyan claims, with no evidentiary support, that the medication he was taking prevented him from safely operating a motor vehicle and thus from making the daily bank deposits. It is unclear whether this alleged connection between his disability and the violation of the policy is legally relevant. See Halpern, 669 F.3d at 465 C'"'[M]isconduct-even misconduct related to a disability-is not itselfa disability' and may be a basis for dismissal." (quoting l\;farlinson, 104 F.3d at 686 n.3)). In any event, the record shows that when Matelyan discussed the problem with Elstad, she told him to leave his work site to make the deposits during the day, and Matelyan refused because he did not think it was "safe" to leave the employees alone. The fact that his rationale for rejecting the accommodation had nothing to do with his disability undermines his assertion that his failure to follow the policy was a plausible consequence of his disability. 5 It is true, as Matelyan argues, that the policy says that violators will receive written warnings and may eventually be moved from cash-handling to another position, not immediately temlinated. But Matelyan has not shown that the decision to terminate him due to his violation of the cash-handling policy was based on his disability. Absent such a showing of discrimination, it is immaterial that SAGE decided to terminate him without giving him written warnings. No claim of wrongful discharge is before the Court. 4 9 . . A separate Order will ISSUE. UNIT August 24, 2012 10 lsi R J. MESSITTE ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
