Free Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Proguard Security, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. Linda Hinton, Plaintiff,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV03-1985-PHX-SRB FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff, Linda Hinton, was employed as a security guard by Defendant, Proguard Security, in April 2002. 2. On August 31, 2002, the Plaintiff sustained a job-related injury to her back and was in an off-work status until January 2003. 3. In January 2003, Plaintiff's doctor released her to return to work on a modified duty schedule and also prescribed a cane for her use when needed. 4. Plaintiff's Release to Work form was apparently sent by her physician to the workers' compensation carrier who forwarded the release to Proguard. There is no evidence that the doctor's narrative report, which included that Plaintiff was to use a cane when needed, was forwarded by the workers' compensation carrier to Proguard.
Case 2:03-cv-01985-SRB Document 75 Filed 01/20/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5. Plaintiff met with Jerry Heller, the director of operations at Proguard, in late January 2003 about her return to work. After discussion about available assignments she choose an assignment to work at a Proguard site at Alaska Airlines. While working that first night Plaintiff used her cane when making her walking rounds of the property. 6. The next morning Alaska Airlines complained to Proguard about Plaintiff's use of a cane and advised Proguard that they did not want Plaintiff working with a cane. Proguard was unaware that Plaintiff had been prescribed the use of a cane by her doctor and Plaintiff had not mentioned this when meeting with Mr. Heller. Plaintiff subsequently obtained a revised work capacity and limitations form from her physician, dated February 20, 2003, which she faxed to Proguard. This revised form contained some minor modifications to her work capacity and also specifically noted that Plaintiff was to use a cane at the work place. 7. Plaintiff met again with Mr. Heller on or about February 21, 2003, about obtaining another work assignment. While Plaintiff claims that Mr. Heller offered her nothing within her work limitations the Court found this testimony not credible. Rather, the Court finds that Mr. Heller referred Plaintiff to Danielle Smith, the scheduling coordinator, so that Ms. Smith could find Plaintiff a work assignment within her limitations. 8. On February 21, 2003, Ms. Smith offered Plaintiff several work assignments that met her work limitations but Plaintiff turned down all of them for various reasons. Ms. Smith advised her to continue to call her each week because other openings would be available that might meet her needs. Plaintiff only called back once, was offered a particular assignment that she did not want and never called again. Ms. Smith tried to reach Plaintiff once or twice about her return to work but was unable to reach her. 9. Proguard had jobs available for Plaintiff within her work limitations but Plaintiff choose not to accept any of these jobs. 10. Proguard attempted to accommodate Plaintiff's limitations as Proguard had accommodated other employees with limitations, but Plaintiff, for reasons of her own not disclosed to Proguard or to this Court, elected not to return to work at Proguard. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -2Case 2:03-cv-01985-SRB Document 75 Filed 01/20/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Proguard did not violate Plaintiff's civil rights as guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213. The Court need not determine whether Plaintiff was a person with a disability covered by this Act because even if she were there was no violation of her rights because Defendant was at all times ready, willing, and able to offer her accommodations to work within her limitations.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED granting judgment in favor of Defendant, Proguard Security, and against Plaintiff, Linda Hinton, dismissing Plaintiff's claims.

DATED this 17th day of January, 2006.

-3Case 2:03-cv-01985-SRB Document 75 Filed 01/20/2006 Page 3 of 3