Lawrence Easley v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., Et. al.

Disability Discrimination - Lawrence Easley was one of about 116 journeyman mechanics working at Sea-Land Service. Sea-Land's journeyman mechanics are assigned to work in specific areas. Each area has different duties and requires physical labor to some degree. Once assigned to an area, the mechanics do not rotate. Seniority plays no role in assignment. Sea-Land has a policy that mechanics should ask for help to lift more than 50 pounds. Easley worked in the van shop, the most physically demanding of all areas. On August 15, 1991, while using an air-powered chisel to open a rusty container door, Easley suffered a herniated disc. Easley went on medical leave. Dr. Juan Juarez and Dr. Kelvin Ma recommended Easley not do `racheting jobs' or anything that would jeopardize his neck. When he returned to work, he was assigned to the van shop. Easley requested a position in the less rigorous `inspection lane.' After a brief period there, he was sent back to the van shop. While processing Easley's worker's compensation claim, Sea-Land became alarmed by his medical records and sent him home out of concern he would suffer further injury. Sea-Land did not try to find a job Easley could do or ask him about the specific nature of his medical restrictions. Easley underwent a physical capacities examination (PCE) in December 1991. The PCE occupational therapist recommended that Easley not return to his job of injury because it requires continuous use of air tools, and that light duty positions be considered. Easley hand-delivered the PCE report to Sea-Land, but was told it was not acceptable because the therapist did not have a description of the mechanic job. Sea-Land set up an independent medical examination (IME) on January 29, 1992. The IME confirmed Easley could return to work with restrictions as stated in the PCE. The doctors pronounced Easley `fit for employment' and recommended restrictions against lifting more than 30 pounds above the shoulder for the next 90 days. The report continued: At the end of that time, Mr. Easley will know if he is able to do his regular job, and I am sure he will do that job if he is capable. If such is not the case, I would recommend that he be maintained on a permanent basis with restrictions against lifting 30 pounds above the level of his shoulders. Easley did not receive a copy of the IME report and was not informed of the doctors' recommendations. On March 9, 1992, Sea-Land told Easley to return to work. He was again assigned to the van shop. As before, he consistently requested lighter assignments. In July 1992, while Easley was on vacation, Sea-Land eliminated the inspection lane where Easley had been working. When he returned, Easley was sent to the van shop. Easley complained, then met with management. During that meeting, Sea-Land called Crawford & Company, its worker compensation administrator, to ask if they could legally require Easley to work in the van shop. A Crawford representative responded that Easley could work anywhere provided he was not required to lift more than 30 pounds over his shoulders. Later that month, Sea-Land sent Easley to a second IME to determine if Easley could return to his job of injury. After the exam, Easley returned to the van shop. That same day, the IME doctors faxed to Sea-Land a one-page `check list' of restrictions and recommended Easley not return to his job of injury. The restrictions included no air tool use or other jarring activity, work in a `medium job description,' no lifting over 50 pounds, but frequent lifting of up to 25 pounds was permitted. The check list recommended no further treatment. At the end of the day, Sea-land told Easley not to return to work until called. The responsible Sea-Land manager testified he released Easley from work when he learned he had permanent restrictions. One week later, Sea-Land received a more detailed IME report confirming the panel's preliminary determination that Easley's condition was stable and he needed no further treatment. The panel concluded he had zero percent permanent partial impairment. Nonetheless, the panel concluded: [I] would be prudent to place some job restrictions on him in regards to a permanent restriction of not using air-type tools or other activities that would produce jarring to his cervical spine. Other lifting restrictions should correspond to a medium work duty. . . . We do feel that these restrictions should remain on a permanent basis, such that he is at a high potential for recurrent radiculopathy and further herniation of this disc, which in the future could even represent a surgical lesion. On October 15, 1992, Crawford & Company informed Easley that based on the opinions of Dr. Juarez and the independent IME panel, his condition was at a maximum improvement and he could not return to his job of injury as a result of the physical restrictions. Easley was told to work with a vocational counselor to determine his employability outside of Sea-Land. In an October 16, 1992 letter, the IME panel confirmed Easley could work as a mechanic if the work was modified to medium level. The report detailed Sea-Land's light, medium, and heavy duty positions and concluded Easley could perform all except the heavy duty positions. The report was not provided to Easley. During this time, Easley repeatedly requested assignment to jobs he could do, which he identified. Sea-Land refused. In November, Sea-Land and Easley conducted a `walk-through' of the Sea-Land job sites to determine which jobs Easley could perform. Easley was not placed in any job.

On December 10, 1992, Easley filed a disability discrimination claim with the Tacoma Human Rights Commission (Commission). The Commission found reasonable cause to believe that Sea-Land had discriminated against Easley on the basis of his disability in violation of the Tacoma City Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Easley filed suit under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Sea-Land, which was reversed on appeal. The claim then went to trial.

At trial, a jury found Sea-Land had not discriminated against Easley. The trial court denied Easley's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

Unknown

Unknown

Easley appealed. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division I, reversed the trial court. See: ___ P.2d ___ , ___ Wn. App. ___ (2-28-2000). Note: The above date reflects the appellate court decision date, not the original trial date. Reported by JAB.