Henry James Folsom v. Missouri State Highway Patrol and Sarah Eberhard ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
    WESTERN DISTRICT
    HENRY JAMES FOLSOM,          )
    Appellant, )
    )
    v.                           )              WD82081
    )
    MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY       )              FILED: August 20, 2019
    PATROL and SARAH             )
    EBERHARD,                    )
    Respondents. )
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County
    The Honorable Jon E. Beetem, Judge
    Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, C.J., and
    Alok Ahuja and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.
    Henry Folsom sued his former employer, the Missouri State Highway Patrol,
    and his Highway Patrol supervisor, Major Sarah Eberhard (collectively “the
    Highway Patrol”), in the Circuit Court of Cole County. Folsom claimed that the
    Highway Patrol discriminated against him on the basis of his disability (post-
    traumatic stress disorder) when it terminated his employment as a Trooper.
    Folsom alleged that the Highway Patrol’s actions violated the Missouri Human
    Rights Act, chapter 213, RSMo.
    The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Highway Patrol. Folsom
    appeals. He contends that summary judgment was inappropriate because there
    was a genuine issue of material fact whether the Highway Patrol should have
    offered him an alternative position in which he was capable of working, as a
    reasonable accommodation for his disability. We conclude that Folsom failed to
    present a genuine factual issue whether an alternative position was available which
    would have accommodated the highly restrictive conditions under which he was
    able to work. We accordingly affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment
    to the Patrol.
    Factual Background
    Folsom was employed as a Trooper with the Highway Patrol starting in
    January 1997. Folsom was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”)
    after he was involved in a work-related shooting in 2000. In September 2012, when
    Folsom had the rank of sergeant and was a criminal investigator with the Highway
    Patrol, he was involved in a second work-related shooting. This second shooting
    incident exacerbated his PTSD. Folsom did not return to work at the Patrol after
    the 2012 shooting. Once he used up his available leave time, Folsom’s employment
    with the Highway Patrol was terminated in December 2014.
    Folsom testified that he asked for an accommodation for his PTSD in late
    2012 and in 2013, but was told by his supervisors that if he could not perform his
    duties as a Trooper, no other accommodation would be made for him.
    Following the 2012 shooting, Folsom saw a series of mental health
    professionals, each of whom concluded that he was incapable of performing his
    former duties with the Highway Patrol. First, Folsom saw Dr. Steven Akeson, a
    clinical psychologist. On January 21, 2013, following his third session with Folsom,
    Dr. Akeson noted that “[a]t this time it is my opinion that [Folsom] is not yet ready
    to return to work.” Dr. Akeson did, however, note that “[a] graduated return to
    work related duties would be anticipated but more specific limitations would
    depend on progress.”
    In December 2013, Dr. David Lutz, a clinical psychologist, conducted a fitness
    for duty evaluation on Folsom at the request of the Highway Patrol. During the
    examination, Dr. Lutz noted that Folsom,
    2
    would have great difficulty returning to his job in a safe and effective
    manner. He had made it clear that he will not put himself in such a
    situation [where use of a firearm might be required] again. The fact
    that he has gone through two shooting incidents heightens his
    vulnerability for symptoms even further. If he were [to] return to his
    job, he likely would put himself and others at risk. The job description
    contains statements such as, “Ability to function effectively in high-
    pressure and stressful situations.” [Folsom] would not be able to
    function effectively in such a situation, as his symptoms, including
    hypervigilance and hyperresponsiveness, are likely to be reactivated
    even more easily.
    Dr. Lutz concluded that Folsom “is not psychologically capable of returning to his
    job with the Missouri State Highway Patrol.”
    In June 2014, Folsom met with Dr. Wayne Stillings. According to Dr.
    Stillings’ report, Folsom told him that because of his experience in the two prior
    shooting incidents, “he will never work in law enforcement again. Because his
    PTSD gives him false signals of being under threat, he is fearful of pulling a gun
    and shooting someone when they are merely reaching into their back pocket for a
    wallet, etc.”
    Between October and December 2014, Dr. Edwin Wolfgram interviewed
    Folsom. In his report, Dr. Wolfgram indicated that Folsom would not be able: “to
    understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions”; “to make judgments that
    are commensurate with the functions of unskilled work – i.e., simple work related
    decisions”; “to respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers and usual work
    situations”; or “to deal with changes in a routine work setting.”
    In addition, in May 2015 Folsom was seen by Phillip Eldred, a certified
    rehabilitation counselor. After reviewing Folsom’s medical records, Eldred
    concluded that Folsom “has not been able to work for approximately one and one-
    half years and as a practical matter he will not be able to return to competitive,
    gainful employment.”
    3
    Folsom testified that he was receiving disability benefits from the Social
    Security Administration, from the Veterans Administration, and from a private
    disability insurance policy. Folsom also received an award of an unspecified
    amount as a result of a worker’s compensation claim that he filed.
    After his employment with the Highway Patrol was terminated in December
    2014, Folsom filed a complaint with the Missouri Human Rights Commission,
    alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act.
    After receiving a right to sue letter, Folsom filed his petition against the Patrol in
    the Circuit Court of Cole County.
    During discovery, the Highway Patrol served an interrogatory on Folsom
    which asked him to “[s]tate each accommodation [he] maintain[s] would have
    permitted [him] to return to duty and fulfill the ordinary requirements of [his]
    employment.” Folsom responded by stating: “If I had been granted a position with
    limited social contact, as my treatment providers indicated, I could have possibly
    digressed [sic] my PTSD to a point where I could have returned to full duty.”
    During his deposition, Folsom was asked about the treatment plan referenced
    in this interrogatory response. Folsom testified that Dr. Akeson had a plan,
    [w]here I would, like, come back to work for maybe four hours the first
    week, eight hours the next week and kind of gradually assimilate back
    into the work force. And a lot of it was – so like in the beginning I
    would have no social contact, no enforcement duties, no contact with
    citizens. Just basically showing up, being acclimatized to being back
    at work. And then it would kind of digress [sic] from there, more
    hours, maybe a little bit more social contact then eventually dealing
    with the public.
    Although he was found to be unfit for duty as a Trooper, Folsom stated in his
    deposition that the Highway Patrol could have accommodated him “like they do for
    other people.” He stated in his deposition that he “[c]ould have answered the
    telephone[,] [c]ould have filed papers[,] [or] could have stuffed envelopes.” Folsom
    claimed the Highway Patrol had previously accommodated other Troopers who had
    4
    physical or mental health issues (including pregnancies, serious cancer diagnoses,
    or orthopedic injuries) by letting those employees perform clerical or other
    administrative work, so that they did not have to consume their sick leave until
    they were able to resume their duties as Troopers.
    When asked for the jobs to which he requested a transfer, Folsom stated that
    he “didn’t say any specific jobs. I just said another job in Jefferson City. I knew
    they had all kinds of jobs there, but I didn’t specifically request a job.” When asked
    to clarify what he meant by “all kinds of jobs there,” Folsom stated “answer
    telephone, CQ duty at the academy. You know, there’s always something go –
    somebody hurt up there working or doing something. I knew that they had
    something I could do up there probably.”
    After the close of discovery, the Highway Patrol moved for summary
    judgment, contending that the undisputed evidence established that, because of his
    PTSD, Folsom was unable to work for the Patrol even with a reasonable
    accommodation. The circuit court granted the motion. Folsom appeals.
    Standard of Review
    “This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo.” Gall v. Steele,
    
    547 S.W.3d 564
    , 567 (Mo. 2018) (citing ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am.
    Marine Supply Corp., 
    854 S.W.2d 371
    , 376 (Mo. 1993)). “Summary judgment shall
    be entered if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party
    is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wilmes v. Consumers Oil Co. of
    Maryville, 
    473 S.W.3d 705
    , 714 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted); see Rule 74.04(c)(6).
    A defending party can demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment
    by showing: (1) facts negating any of the claimant’s necessary
    elements; (2) the claimant, after an adequate period of discovery, has
    been unable, and will not be able, to produce evidence sufficient to
    allow the trier of fact to find the existence of any one of the claimant’s
    elements; or (3) there is no genuine dispute of the existence of facts
    5
    required to support the defending party’s properly pleaded affirmative
    defense.
    Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Addison Ins. Co., 
    448 S.W.3d 818
    , 826 (Mo. 2014) (citing ITT
    
    Commercial, 854 S.W.2d at 381
    ).
    Analysis
    Folsom argues that the circuit court erred in granting the Highway Patrol’s
    motion for summary judgment. He contends that genuine issues of material fact
    existed as to whether he could have maintained his employment if the Patrol had
    reasonably accommodated his PTSD by placing him in a non-Trooper position.
    The Missouri Human Rights Act prohibits an employer from discharging or
    otherwise discriminating against an employee because of the employee’s disability.
    § 213.055.1(1)(a), RSMo. “To establish a prima facie case under the [Missouri
    Human Rights Act] the plaintiff must show that: (1) he is legally disabled; (2) he
    was discharged or suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the disability was
    a factor in his discharge or adverse employment action.” Baldridge v. Kansas City
    Pub. Sch., 
    552 S.W.3d 699
    , 710 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing Harvey v. Mo Dep’t of
    Corr., 
    379 S.W.3d 156
    , 160 (Mo. 2012)).1 The Act defines a disability as “a physical
    or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of a person’s major
    life activities . . . which with or without reasonable accommodation does not
    interfere with performing the job . . . .” § 213.010(5), RSMo. “Reviewing courts
    have interpreted this statutory definition of disability as having two parts: 1) a
    person must have an impairment that limits major life activity; and 2) with or
    1       Under the interpretation of the Missouri Human Rights Act prevailing at the
    time of Folsom’s termination, “to establish a claim of employment discrimination an
    employee was required to establish that his or her membership in a protected class was a
    contributing factor in the employer’s decision to take adverse action against the employee.”
    Davis v. Walgreen Co., No. WD81341, 
    2019 WL 1768405
    , at *8 (Mo. App. W.D. Apr. 23,
    2019) (citation omitted). The “contributing factor” causation standard was abrogated by the
    General Assembly in 2017. 
    Id. *8 n.3
    (citing § 213.101.4, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2018). We
    have not applied the 2017 amendment retroactively to claims which arose before it took
    effect. 
    Id. (citing Bram
    v. AT & T Mobility Servs., LLC, 
    564 S.W.3d 787
    , 795 (Mo. App.
    W.D. 2018)).
    6
    without reasonable accommodation, that impairment must not interfere with
    performing the job . . . .” Wells v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs., 
    379 S.W.3d 919
    , 924 (Mo.
    App. S.D. 2012) (citations omitted). Unlike its counterpart federal statutes, the
    Missouri Human Rights Act “makes the question of whether the job can be
    performed with or without reasonable accommodation a part of the test to
    determine whether an employee is disabled.” Medley v. Valentine Radford
    Comm’ns., Inc., 
    173 S.W.3d 315
    , 320 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005).
    “A ‘reasonable accommodation’ is an accommodation that does not impose
    undue financial and administrative burdens on the employer or require
    fundamental alterations in the nature of the program.” 
    Wells, 379 S.W.3d at 924
    (citations and internal quotations omitted). An accommodation may include “job
    restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of
    equipment or devices, the provision of readers or interpreters and other similar
    actions.” 8 CSR 60-3.060(G)(2); see also Devor v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
    Kansas City, 
    943 S.W.2d 662
    , 666 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997).
    In its summary judgment motion, the Highway Patrol contended that Folsom
    was not “disabled” within the meaning of the Human Rights Act because the
    uncontroverted facts established that he was unable to perform his job duties, even
    with a reasonable accommodation. The evidence is undisputed that from the time
    of Folsom’s second work-related shooting incident in September 2012 until his
    termination in December 2014, he was incapable of performing his duties as a
    Highway Patrol Trooper. The summary judgment record indicates that Folsom told
    multiple mental health professionals that he did not believe he was capable of
    carrying a firearm, or of responding appropriately to the sort of stressful and
    confrontational situations to which a Trooper is required to respond. Based on
    Folsom’s statements and their own evaluations, the mental health professionals
    uniformly agreed that Folsom was unfit for duty as a Trooper. In his briefing to
    7
    this Court, Folsom concedes that as a result of the exacerbation of his PTSD
    following the 2012 shooting, “he was not able to perform his then current duties as
    an enforcement officer.”
    Although he does not dispute that he was incapable of serving as a Trooper,
    Folsom argues that the Highway Patrol could have accommodated him by
    transferring him to another position within the Patrol, such as in a clerical,
    administrative, or building maintenance function.
    Reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to find
    another job for an employee who is unable to perform the job he was
    doing, but an employer cannot deny an employee alternative
    employment opportunities reasonably available under the employer’s
    existing policies. A plaintiff must show not only that an alternative
    position was vacant, but that he was qualified for that position.
    Snyder v. ICI Explosives USA, Inc., 
    938 S.W.2d 946
    , 949 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997)
    (citing Berkowski v. St. Louis Cnty. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 
    854 S.W.2d 819
    , 826-
    27 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993), in turn citing Umphries v. Jones, 
    804 S.W.2d 38
    , 41 (Mo.
    App. E.D. 1991)).
    Folsom failed to present a genuine factual issue as to whether there was an
    available, vacant position to which he could have been transferred under the
    Highway Patrol’s existing policies. Folsom testified in his deposition that the
    Highway Patrol had an established practice of transferring Troopers with health
    issues to other positions (such as clerical or administrative positions) until the
    Troopers’ health issues resolved and they could return to service as Troopers, so
    that they “didn’t have to burn sick leave.” In his deposition, however, Folsom only
    identified the attributes of the type of position he was seeking (that it involve
    limited or no social contact), and the type of tasks he was capable of performing
    (such as clerical, administrative, or maintenance work). When he was specifically
    asked to identify the particular jobs to which he requested a transfer, Folsom stated
    that he “didn’t say any specific jobs. [He] just said another job in Jefferson City.
    8
    [He] knew they had all kinds of jobs there, but [he] didn’t specifically request a job.”
    When pressed, Folsom was unable to identify any particular, available position into
    which he could have been transferred, but instead testified that “I knew that they
    had something I could do up there probably.” Folsom failed to identify an available
    position simply by expressing his general belief that there was “probably”
    “something [he] could do” at the Highway Patrol’s Jefferson City headquarters. See
    Noel v. AT & T Corp., No. 4:12-CV-1673 CAS, 
    2014 WL 117606
    , at *13 (E.D. Mo.
    Jan. 13, 2014), aff’d, 
    774 F.3d 920
    (8th Cir. 2014) (“Plaintiff cannot create a genuine
    issue of material fact . . . simply by arguing that his employer is a larger company
    and people have moved around before, so surely he could have transferred to
    another job. To create an issue of fact, plaintiff must proffer evidence that there
    was an available job for which he was qualified . . . .” (record citation omitted)).
    In addition, Folsom failed to show that the Highway Patrol’s policy would
    have required an accommodation in his circumstances. All of the examples Folsom
    gave of employees being transferred to light-duty positions involved temporary
    transfers to permit an employee to recover from a physical or mental health
    condition. In Folsom’s case, however, it appears that he would have required a
    permanent, or at least long-term, reassignment to a position which isolated him
    from some of the core functions of a Highway Patrol Trooper: carrying a firearm;
    and responding to stressful, confrontational, and potentially dangerous situations.
    Folsom did not identify any prior example where a Trooper experiencing health
    problems was given the sort of long-term job re-assignment to which he claims he
    was entitled.
    More importantly, Folsom testified that he would have been capable of
    returning to the Highway Patrol following the 2012 shooting in only an extremely
    limited capacity. Thus, he testified that Dr. Akeson had formulated a plan
    9
    [w]here I would, like, come back to work for maybe four hours the first
    week, eight hours the next week and kind of gradually assimilate back
    into the work force. And a lot of it was – so like in the beginning I
    would have no social contact, no enforcement duties, no contact with
    citizens. Just basically showing up, being acclimatized to being back
    at work. And then it would kind of digress [sic] from there, more
    hours, maybe a little bit more social contact then eventually dealing
    with the public.
    As Folsom’s counsel conceded at oral argument, Folsom did not identify any
    prior case in which an injured employee was given a light-duty assignment that was
    anything other than full-time. Thus, Folsom cited no precedent for the extremely
    limited hours, and extremely limited work, that he would have been able to perform
    for an indefinite period of time. Given Folsom’s own testimony as to the severe
    limitations on his ability to work for the Patrol in any capacity, he failed to
    demonstrate that there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether a “reasonable
    accommodation” would have allowed him to retain his employment with the
    Highway Patrol.2
    The Highway Patrol showed that, on the undisputed facts, Folsom would be
    unable to prove that he was “disabled,” meaning that he had “a physical or mental
    impairment . . . which with or without reasonable accommodation does not interfere
    with performing the job . . . .” § 213.010(5), RSMo. The circuit court did not err in
    granting the Highway Patrol’s motion for summary judgment.
    2       Folsom relies on Berger v. Emerson Climate Technologies, 
    508 S.W.3d 136
    (Mo. App. S.D. 2016). But in Berger, the Southern District held only that a petition should
    not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff alleged that
    available positions existed which he was capable of performing, and that the employer
    denied him a reasonable accommodation by refusing to transfer him to one of those
    available positions. 
    Id. at 145-46.
    Berger addressed only the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s
    petition, not the factual showing a plaintiff must make, after full discovery, to avoid a
    properly supported summary judgment motion.
    10
    Conclusion
    The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
    _________________________________
    Alok Ahuja, Judge
    All concur
    11