Citations
- 983 F. Supp. 669
Full opinion text
ORDER AND REASONS
BEER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is granted as to the claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but denied in all other respects. The remaining state law claims are hereby remanded to state court for further proceedings.
Facts
Plaintiff, Dr. James Robertson, had been neurologist at the Neuromedical Center (hereafter “NMC”) in Baton Rouge since 1981. He was a shareholder in the NMC corporation and was working under an employment contract with NMC. In May 1994, at the suggestion of one of his colleagues, plaintiff was tested and diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Approximately four months later, he was terminated from his employment with NMC. Plaintiff contends that he was wrongfully terminated because of his diagnosis of ADHD and that reasonable accommodations were recommended, but never implemented. Defendants contend that plaintiffs work-related problems predated his diagnosis of ADHD, and those problems resulted in his termination “for cause” as provided in his employment contract.
Plaintiff filed suit against NMC and various individual doctors in state court alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as breach of contract, loss of consortium, wrongful termination, tortious interference with a contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants removed the ease to federal court on the basis of the ADA claim. The Court concludes that in the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment on the ADA claim is appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
ADA CLAIM
The ADA expansively prohibits discrimination in employment against persons with a disability, providing that, “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensa.tion, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
To prevail on an ADA claim, the plaintiff must prove 1) he has a “disability”; 2) he is “qualified” for the job; and 3) an adverse employment decision was made solely because of his disability. Rizzo v. Children’s World Learning Centers, Inc., 84 F.3d 758, 763 (5th Cir.1996).
A. IS PLAINTIFF DISABLED?
A “disability” is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). In this case, there is no dispute that plaintiff has been diagnosed with ADHD. For purposes of this summary judgment motion, defendants stipulate that ADHD is a disability that substantially limits plaintiffs ability to work.
B. IS PLAINTIFF A “QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL”?
A “qualified individual with a . disability” is one who can perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodations. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).
Plaintiff claims that he is qualified because he is able to perform the essential functions of his job with reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff argues that issues of fact exists as to whether the administrative portion of his job is an “essential function” and whether he could be reasonably accommodated.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
The Code of Federal Regulations provides that,
(2) A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including but not limited to the following:
(i) The function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function;