Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Famba v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

December 19, 2019

FREDDY FAMBA, Plaintiff,
v.
RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC. Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Stephanie A. Gallagher United States District Judgef

         Plaintiff Freddy Famba (“Plaintiff”) filed this case against his former employer, Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc. (“Rite Aid”), alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”), Title 20 of Maryland's State Government Article. ECF 1. Discovery is now concluded, and Rite Aid has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“the Motion”), ECF 22. I have reviewed the Motion, along with Plaintiff's Opposition and Memorandum in Support, ECF 31, 32, and Rite Aid's Reply, ECF 33. No. hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons that follow, I will grant Defendant's Motion.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff began working as a stocker for Rite Aid on May 28, 2002. ECF 22-4, Exh. 1 at 34:8-10, 45:1-3). The “Essential Duties and Responsibilities” of that position, as outlined in the written job description, include:

1. Cut open boxed inventory in the storage area behind the flow rack or on the rack.
2. Place opened boxes on the appropriate shelf of the flow rack.
3. Walk the length of the flow rack.
4. Use pallet jack to stage moves.
5. Use roller cart to transport boxes to be replenished.
6. Use reach pole to assist in replenishing.
7. Conducts clean sweep activities.

ECF 22-4, Exh. 2 at 18. The written description further classifies the stocker job as “heavy” in exertional level, according to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Id. at 19. In addition, the job description notes physical demands that “are representative of those that must be met to successfully perform the essential functions of this job, ” including the ability to “lift up to seventy-five (75) pounds and carry a distance of ten (10) feet” regularly, and “lift up to fifty (50) pounds and carry a distance of ten (10) feet” frequently. Id. According to the job description, stockers are also frequently required to “stoop, kneel, crouch, and/or crawl.” Id. Plaintiff corroborated, at his deposition, that his essential duties included lifting up to 75 pounds, and bending, stooping, and kneeling. ECF 22-4, Exh. 1 at 48:6-10 (responding “Yes” when asked if he would “sometimes have to lift up to 75 pounds and carry a distance of ten feet”), 48:16-49:1.

         Plaintiff underwent emergency gallbladder removal surgery on June 13, 2017. Id. at 77:20-79:13. He submitted the appropriate paperwork to take a medical leave of absence, including a Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition (“CHCP”). Id. at 84:8-85:18. Rite Aid approved Plaintiff's initial leave of absence, and then four extensions, affording him approved leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and then non-FMLA leave from June 27, 2017 through September 11, 2017. ECF 22-4, Exh. 4 at Interrog. 5. On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff's doctor permitted his return to work, with an assessment indicating that he should engage in no lifting greater than 40 lbs. ECF 22-4, Exh. 1 at 115:18-116:10. Although stockers routinely lift in excess of that weight, Rite Aid agreed to place Plaintiff in its “Rx” function, which is not a light duty area, but tended to have boxes weighing less than 40 lbs. See ECF 22-4, Exh. 7 at 62:14-63:2 (“It was not light duty, but the central functions of the job did not require lifting over 40 pounds.”).

         However, shortly after his return to work in the Rx department, Plaintiff noted that the lifting and bending gave him pain, and he sought treatment in the emergency room. ECF 22-4, Exh. 6 at 32:6-13 (“From the work I do in Rx, that's what caused me pain.”). After another brief leave, Plaintiff returned to work with an updated medical restriction providing that, for two weeks, he could not lift more than 10 lbs. ECF 22-4, Exh. 8. Rite Aid responded that no stocker positions could ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.