The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ian H. Levin, Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher K. Young ("Plaintiff") seeks recovery in an
Amended Complaint against Defendant Chicago Transit Authority ("CTA") for
unlawful discriminatory employment practices in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et
seq. Before the Court is Defendant CTA's motion for summary judgment. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion for summary
I. PLAINTIFF'S TERMINATION
Plaintiff began working for the CTA as a part-time bus operator on
November 6, 1997. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) St. ¶ 2. Plaintiff was
assigned to the CTA's North Park bus garage located at 3112 West Foster
Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Id. ¶ 3.
On December 4, 1999, Plaintiff was working bus run 249 which operated
on Clark Street. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) St. ¶ 22. Plaintiff's bus run
began at approximately 8:31 p.m. on December 4th, and ended at
approximately 6:19 a.m. on December 5, 1999. Id. ¶ 23. At about 12:31
a.m. on December 5th, Plaintiff slipped on the wet pavement and injured
his ankle as he attempted to board his bus. Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff
continued working and reported the incident to the manager on duty,
Eileen Jensen, at the end of his shift. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff informed
Ms. Jensen that he was okay and did not indicate that he had been
injured. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff did not request medical attention at
that time. Id.
On December 6, 1999, Plaintiff reported to work and informed Melvin
Jackson, Bus System Transportation Manager, that his ankle was hurting
and that he was unable to work. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) St. ¶ 28. Mr.
Jackson requested that Plaintiff complete several written reports
regarding his injury. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff completed a Miscellaneous
Incident Report and an Employee's Report of Injury on Duty wherein he
reported that during his December 4, 1999 run 249 he exited his bus to
perform an inspection and that at 12:31 a.m. on December 5, 1999, as he
attempted to board his bus, he twisted his ankle. Id.
Because of his claim of injury, Mr. Jackson ordered Plaintiff to submit
to drug and alcohol testing pursuant to the CTA's drug testing policies
and procedures. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) St. ¶ 32. Pursuant to the CTA's
Drug and Alcohol Policy and Testing Program for Safety Sensitive
Employees (effective January 1, 1995),*fn1 the position of bus operator
is a "safety-sensitive" position for purposes of CTA's drug testing
policies and procedures. Id. ¶ 30; Ex. D. Furthermore, the CTA's Drug
and Alcohol Policy and Testing Program for Safety Sensitive Employees
provides in pertinent part:
g. Non-FTA [Federal Trade Administration] testing:
i. In the event of an accident or any other incident
involving a possible claim of injury or property
damage not otherwise covered by the regulations.
Ex. D, CTA Drug and Alcohol Policy and Testing Program for Safety
Sensitive Employees, p. 14-15.
Because Plaintiff did not object to taking a drug and alcohol test,
Mr. Jackson notified the CTA's Control Center Manager and requested that
a technician from SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories be dispatched
to the North Park garage to test Plaintiff.*fn2 Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3)
St. ¶¶ 33, 34. Plaintiff submitted to a breathalyzer and provided a
urine sample to Ms. Violet McBride, a collection site technician for
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories on December 6, 1999.*fn3 Id.
¶ 36. Subsequent to Plaintiff's testing, Ms. McBride took the specimen
to SmithKline Beecham Clinic Laboratories for analysis. Id. ¶ 39. The
results of the urinalysis proved positive for the presence of cocaine
metabolites. Id. ¶ 40.
Plaintiff did not return to work until December 22, 1999. Def.'s LR
56.1(a)(3) St. ¶ 41. When Plaintiff reported for work that day, he
had been signed out of the North Park bus garage sick book and was
instructed to report to the CTA Medical Department by Mr. Walter Thomas,
CTA's North Park Garage Manager. Id. Plaintiff reported to the CTA
Medical Department where Dr. Irma Realiza, CTA's Medical Review Officer,
informed Plaintiff that his urinalysis had tested positive for cocaine
metabolites. Id. ¶ 42. During their meeting, the CTA relates that
Plaintiff did not mention anything to Dr. Realiza regarding potential
irregularities in the drug testing procedure.*fn4 Id. ¶ 43. Dr.
Realiza then advised Ms. Cynthia Florence, Manager, Industrial Due
Process, of Plaintiff's positive drug test and gave Ms. Florence copies
of her written reports. Id. ¶ 44. Ms. Florence notified Plaintiff
that he had violated the CTA Drug and Alcohol Policy and Testing Program
for Safety-Sensitive Employees, other CTA rules, and that he was being
suspended indefinitely. Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff was instructed to report
for further disposition regarding his suspension on January 6, 2000. Id.
On January 6, 2000, Plaintiff appeared pursuant to his Suspension
Notification for an interview with Ms. Florence regarding his positive
December 6, 1999 drug test. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) St. ¶ 46. Plaintiff
was represented by Local 241 Vice-President Lee Robinson who was also
present at the interview. Id. At the interview, Ms. Florence asked
Plaintiff to account for his positive test result. Florence Aff. ¶
11. The CTA states that Plaintiff denied any drug use and told Ms.
Florence that he had no
problems with the collection and processing of
his urine specimen.*fn5 Id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff acknowledged that he
was aware of the CTA's policy regarding the use of drugs and alcohol.
Id. ¶ 47. Mr. Robinson indicated that since Plaintiff had denied any
drug use, the union would make arrangements to have the split sample
(specimen) tested.*fn6 Id. ¶ 50. A second interview was scheduled
for February 2, 2000 in order to discuss the split sample test results.
Id. ¶ 51.
On February 2, 2000, Plaintiff appeared before Ms. Florence for an
interview, and again, he was accompanied by Mr. Robinson. Def.'s LR 56.1
(a)(3) St. ¶ 52. Mr. Robinson verified that Plaintiff's split urine
specimen had tested positive for cocaine metabolites. Id. ¶ 53. At
the end of the February 2, 2000 interview, Ms. Florence informed
Plaintiff that she was recommending him for discharge. Id. ¶ 55. Ms.
Florence was recommending that Plaintiff be discharged because of his
positive December 6, 1999 drug test and his ineligibility for the CTA's
Employee Assistance Program ("EAP").*fn7 Id. ¶ 57. Ms. Florence
further recommended Plaintiff's discharge because he violated the
following CTA rules: General Rules 7a, b, c (obedience to rules); 14a, e
(personal conduct); 24 (use of best judgment); Executive Orders 89-08 and
89-20, Attachment H of the 1996-1999 CTA-ATU Collective Bargaining
Agreement; and CTA/FTA Drug and Alcohol Policy and Testing Program for
Safety Sensitive Employees. Id. Finally, Ms. Florence instructed
Plaintiff to meet with Mr. Robert Gierut, Vice-President, Employee
Relations, for discharge consideration, informed Plaintiff that his
discharge hearing was scheduled for February 10. 2000 at 9:00 a.m. and,
according to the CTA, told Plaintiff that if he failed to report as
instructed he discharged by mail.*fn8 Id. ¶ 55.
Plaintiff is a Type II diabetic. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) St. ¶ 5.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment with the CTA, Plaintiff took oral
hypoglycemic medication to control his Type II diabetes. Id. ¶ 9. In
February, March, July, and September of 1999, Plaintiff provided the
CTA's Medical Department with notes from his personal physician, Dr.
Pinakin Amin, indicating that Plaintiff could perform his duties as a bus
operator and that he did not have any medical restrictions. Id. ¶ 12.
Moreover, Plaintiff never made a medical request for an accommodation to
the CTA's Medical Department or to the CTA's Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA") Accommodation Committee. Id. ¶ 13. Furthermore, Plaintiff
never submitted medical documentation to the CTA indicating that he had
any type of medical restriction.*fn9 Id. ¶ 14.
III. PLAINTIFF'S PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT
Pursuant to Section 3.6 of the 1996-1999 CTA-ATU Collective Bargaining
Agreement, part-time bus operators are eligible to be considered for
available full-time bus operator positions on a seniority basis
(determined by "entered service date"). Def's LR 56.1(a)(3) St. ¶
15. The CTA explains that it did not transition Plaintiff to full-time
status during his employment bccause the CTA first had to transition
other, more senior part-time employees who had earlier entered service
dates than Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 19.*fn10 For example, on December 26,
1997 and January 9, 2000, the CTA transitioned fifty part-time operators
(on each date) to full-time status who had entered service dates of no
later than September 30, 1997 and October 16, 1997, respectively. Id.
¶¶ 16, 17. As of February 10, 2000, (Plaintiff's discharge date), no
part-time bus operator who had been hired on or after November 6, 1997
(Plaintiff's entered service date) had been given the opportunity to
transition to full-time employment. Id. ¶ 18. Furthermore, between
January 1, 1998 and June 14, ...