PHILADELPHIA – A local man has sued the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), claiming that the transport agency violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, when a medical condition he says prevented him from participating in drug screen testing, resulted in his termination.
William Howell filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 4 versus SEPTA. Both parties are of Philadelphia.
“On or around Dec. 13, 1990, defendant hired plaintiff. Throughout the course of plaintiff’s employment with defendant, plaintiff maintained an exemplary disciplinary record and performed his job duties well. In or around 2002, defendant promoted plaintiff to the role of Transportation Manager, a position for which he was professionally qualified and subsequently held for nearly 20 years. By way of background, defendant required employees to submit to random drug testing and defendant had historically tested plaintiff every year. In connection therewith, plaintiff complied with defendant’s testing requirement and successfully passed each test during his lengthy tenure of employment,” the suit says.
“On or around May 26, 2021, defendant directed plaintiff to provide a urine sample for purposes of a random drug test. Despite his best efforts, plaintiff was unable to urinate within the three-hour period set forth in defendant’s Drug-Free Workplace policy. However, plaintiff did in fact provide a urine sample just 20 minutes after the conclusion of said period and additionally provided a blood sample. Notwithstanding same, defendant declined to analyze the samples plaintiff provided. Thereafter, defendant did not advise plaintiff of any consequences resulting from his inability to provide a sample and returned him to his job duties for approximately two weeks.”
The suit adds on or around June 1, 2021, SEPTA ordered Howell to submit to a medical evaluation conducted by its physician. Importantly, the suit says, the perfunctory examination lasted no more than 15 minutes and did not provide the physician with the requisite information to diagnose plaintiff’s inability to provide a urine sample.
As a result of the inadequate evaluation, the physician allegedly determined that there was no valid medical reason for his failure to provide a sample in a timely manner – and furthermore, SEPTA allegedly did not inform Howell of his right to seek an independent medical examination that would inevitably have been more thorough.
“On or around June 4, 2021, defendant suspended plaintiff’s employment based on his alleged ‘refusal’ to submit to the random drug test. As a result, as dictated by the defendant’s policy, a Medical Review Officer assumed responsibility for deciding whether plaintiff had a valid medical explanation or his employment should be terminated. On or around June 9, 2021, plaintiff provided defendant with documentation from his personal physician explaining that plaintiff suffers from Hypertension and the medication prescribed as treatment would impact his ability to urinate as required. By way of further information, Hypertension constitutes a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act in that it substantially limits one or more of plaintiff’s major bodily functions, including, but not limited to, functioning of the circulatory system. Despite becoming aware of his disability and valid medical explanation for his failure to comply with the drug testing requirements, defendant failed to engage in the interactive process with plaintiff and refused to consider any accommodation,” the suit states.
“Furthermore, defendant did not provide plaintiff’s report to the MRO and the MRO failed to conduct his own examination of plaintiff or even contact him to gather any medically relevant information. Unsurprisingly, as a result of the utter failure to engage in the interactive process, the MRO found that plaintiff did not have a sufficient explanation for his inability to provide a urine sample. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a union grievance contesting the decision, but on or around July 14, 2021, defendant upheld the termination decision. In accordance with the grievance procedure, the matter next proceeded to an arbitration hearing in or around January 2022, which ultimately led to the parties reaching an agreement that defendant would reinstate plaintiff. However, defendant conditioned plaintiff’s reinstatement on his passing a drug test and then again failed to accommodate plaintiff with any alteration to the method of testing.”
On Feb. 8, 2022, SEPTA provided Howell with only a few minutes to provide a sample and again he was unable to urinate under those circumstances. Based on his alleged ‘refusal’ to submit to a drug test, SEPTA denied Howell’s reinstatement.
Again, Howell says he did provide blood and late urine samples, yet SEPTA failed to analyze them. Howell immediately visited his physician, who conducted a urine drug test, and later submitted to a hair follicle test, both of which came back negative.
“Significantly, plaintiff’s physician diagnosed him with Paruresis, an anxiety disorder and social phobia which prevents him for urinating on demand under the conditions required in a random drug test. Paruresis constitutes a disability as defined by the Americans with Disability Act in that it substantially limits one or more of plaintiff’s major bodily functions, including, but not limited to, bladder and brain functions, and functions of the neurological and genitourinary systems. Hence, plaintiff’s failure to provide a urine sample is not a refusal, but simply a psychological and physical impossibility, and a disability that is entitled to accommodation. On or around Feb. 11, 2022, plaintiff notified defendant of his diagnosis and requested that defendant accommodate his disability by providing him extra time in order to provide a sample for the drug test. Defendant could have provided the requested accommodation to plaintiff without any undue burden,” the suit says.
“Despite plaintiff’s request for an accommodation in the reinstatement process, defendant failed to engage in the interactive process and flatly denied his request. In further support of his request, plaintiff sought the evaluation of two urologists who confirmed the diagnosis of Paruresis and additionally diagnosed him with Prostatic Enlargement. Although plaintiff has made defendant aware of same, defendant has not made any alternative arrangements for drug testing to accommodate plaintiff’s disability. Inasmuch as the defendant’s policy fails to allow for alternative drug testing methods, it is in violation of the ADA. It is plaintiff’s position that he was discriminated against due to his disabilities and denied a reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA and the PHRA.”
For counts of disability discrimination through violating the ADA and PHRA, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Compensatory damages;
• Punitive damages;
• Liquidated damages;
• Emotional pain and suffering;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees;
• Recoverable costs;
• Pre- and post-judgment interest;
• An allowance to compensate for negative tax consequences
• A permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, heirs and assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in, ratifying, or refusing to correct, employment practices which discriminate in violation of the ADA and the PHRA.
• An order for defendant to institute and implement, and for its employees, to attend and/or otherwise participate in, training programs, policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities;
• An order for defendant to remove and expunge, or to cause to be removed and expunged, all negative, discriminatory, and/or defamatory memoranda and documentation from plaintiff’s record of employment, including, but not limited to, the pre-textual reasons cited for its adverse actions, disciplines and termination, and;
• Extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal statutory provisions sued hereunder, pursuant to Rules 64 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff is represented by David M. Koller and Jordan D. Santo of Koller Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03006
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com