United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. MCCONNELL, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Hexagon Metrology, Inc. ("Hexagon") moves for
summary judgment on all counts of Plaintiff David Saad's
Complaint. ECF No. 27. For the reasons below, the Court
GRANTS Hexagon's Motion for Summary Judgment in its
Saad began working for Hexagon as an Assistant Marketing
Manager in March 2015. Before being hired, Mr. Saad took a
pre-employment drug test and a pre-employment physical
performed by Third-Party Defendant, Occupational Health
Centers of the Southwest, P.A. ("Concentra"). Susan
Booth, Hexagon's Manager of Health and Weil-Being,
scheduled the tests with Concentra and received a fax from
Concentra showing that Mr. Saad passed his pre-employment
physical and drug test.
after he started working for Hexagon, Mr. Saad experienced
performance issues. As a result of his performance
deficiencies, Mr. Saad met with Bridget Benedetti,
Hexagon's Director of Marketing and Communications, and
was provided with a below standards performance review. Ms.
Benedetti also placed Mr. Saad on a written Performance
Improvement Plan ("the Plan") that outlined six
performance areas of concern and five action areas for
improving performance. Mr. Saad's Plan explicitly stated
that the completion date for the Plan was June 15, 2015, Mr,
Saad's progress would be assessed, and a final
determination on whether he raised his performance to a
satisfactory level would be made. The Plan also warned that
if Mr. Saad's performance did not improve sufficiently,
his employment would be reviewed for further action, up to
and including termination. Mr. Saad signed the Plan.
Mr. Saad was placed on the Plan, there were reports of Mr.
Saad's insubordination including his disparaging Ms.
Benedetti to other Hexagon personnel. At one point, Adam
Redford, Hexagon's Trade Show and Events Manager, met
with Ms. Benedetti to relay his concerns that Mr. Saad was
having a negative effect on the team because of his negative
days after the improvement deadline in the Plan, Ms.
Benedetti and Glenn Wambolt, Hexagon's then-Director of
Human Resources, met with Mr, Saad. They discussed his poor
job performance and criticisms of Ms. Benedetti. Mr. Saad
denied making the remarks.
Ms. Benedetti and Mr. Wambolt decided to terminate Mr.
Saad's employment effective June 22, 2015. At all
relevant times including at the time of termination, neither
Ms. Benedetti nor Mr. Wambolt had knowledge that Mr. Saad
suffered from a medical condition or had been prescribed
OxyContin while employed at Hexagon.
on June 8, 2015, Mr. Saad contacted Concentra about his
desire to increase his dosage of OxyContin. Concentra's
Physician's Assistant, Melissa Mills, contacted Mr.
Saad's primary care physician who told Ms. Mills that he
had referred Mr. Saad to a specialist for managing his
alleged chronic pain. On June 16, 2015, Ms. Mills contacted
Ms. Booth at Hexagon and indicated that Mr. Saad wanted to
increase his dosage of OxyContin. The same day that Ms. Booth
learned of Mr, Saad's prescription drug use and medical
condition, she met with Mr. Saad and asked if he
"required an accommodation" for his condition. Mr.
Saad replied that he did not.
17, 2015, Ms. Booth received a note from Mr. Saad's
primary care physician stating that Mr. Saad could work on a
higher dosage of OxyContin. Ms. Booth accepted the note and
Mr. Saad continued to work at Hexagon until he was terminated
on June 22, 2015.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is proper when the pleadings, discovery and
disclosure materials on file, affidavits, and any other
admissible material in the record demonstrate that
"there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. To determine whether summary judgment is
suitable, the court analyzes the record in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant and draws all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor. See Cadle Co. v.
Hayes, 116 F.3d 957, 959 (1st Cir. 1997).
burden falls first on the movant to aver an absence of
genuine issue of material fact which requires resolution at
trial. See Nat'l Amusements, Inc. v. Town of
Dedham,43 F.3d 731, 735 (1st Cir. 1995) (Citing
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 324 (1986)).
The burden then shifts to the nonmovant who must oppose the
motion by presenting facts to show a genuine issue of
material fact remains. Id. A factual issue is
genuine if it "may reasonably be resolved in favor of
either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
All U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A fact is material if it holds the
power to "sway the outcome of the litigation under
applicable law." Nat'l Amusements, 43 F.3d
at 735. The nonmovant must rely on more than "effusive
rhetoric and optimistic surmise" to establish a genuine
issue of material fact. Cadle, 116 F.3d at 960.
Rather, the evidence relied on by the nonmovant "must
have substance in the ...