Whitney Industries Inc Case Study

761 Words4 Pages
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR FOR THE ANYWHERE DISTRICT Nicholas Taylor, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) 08-0158 ) Whitney Industries, Inc., ) ) Defendant, ) ) ___________________________________ ) Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c ), Defendant Whitney Industries, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Whitney”) respectfully requests that this Court grants its Motion for Summary Judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS This action, brought by Plaintiff Nicholas Taylor (hereinafter referred to as “Taylor”) against Whitney arises out of the following factual situation. All facts are undisputed. Whitney is a large national company with approximately 1,000 employees,.…show more content…
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his smoking is protected under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) because nicotine addiction is a “disability.” However, “smoking, whether denominated as a ‘nicotine addiction’ or not, is not a ‘disability’ within the meaning of the ADA.” Brashear v. Simms, 138 F.Supp.2d 693, 695 (D.Md. 2001) (citing Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 57 U.S. 471 (1999)). I. WHITNEY DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN “ADDICTION” AND “WITHDRAWAL” WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES. It is important to note that Whitney’s policy distinguishes between addiction and withdrawal. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines addiction as “persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful,” but it defines withdrawal as “the syndrome of often painful physical and psychological symptoms that follows discontinuance of an addicting drug.” (Webster’s On-Line Dictionary, www.m-w.com). While withdrawal may have effects that could be classified as a disability, it effects are only temporary and diminish over time. Temporary impairments are not disabilities under the ADA. Further, Plaintiff argues that his self-inflicted constant compulsion to smoke is a disability, not the potential effects of withdrawal upon cessation of smoking. (Plaintiff’s Petition, ¶…show more content…
Those employees that smoke have made a conscious decision to do so and to engage in a behavior that is well known to cause health issues, thereby increasing the cost of health care. All conscious action and decisions are not without consequences and Whitney should not have to pay for the transgressions of their employers. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein and in Defendants’ Memorandum of Law, there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, at Plaintiff’s cost, with an award of attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of this matter. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Evan D. LeBlanc, #458674 Attorney at Law TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Brashear v. Simms, 138 F.Supp.2d 693, 695 (D.Md. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 57 U.S. 471 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 STATUES 42 U.S.C. §12102 (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,
Open Document