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.

McAdoo v. Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Authority

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

March 10, 2017

PHILLIP MCADOO, Plaintiff,
v.
THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, THE MARTA/ATU LOCAL 732 EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN, and THE MARTA/ATU LOCAL 732 EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III's Non-Final Report and Recommendation [24] (“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court grant Defendant Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Authority's[1] (“MARTA”) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [14] (“Motion”). Also before the Court are Plaintiff Phillip McAdoo's (“Plaintiff”) Objections to the R&R [29].

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Facts[2]

         On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff Phillip McAdoo filed his complaint [1] against MARTA and two other Defendants, the MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan and the MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan Allowance Committee (collectively “the Plan Defendants”). On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint [2]. MARTA argues that Plaintiff's allegations against it are beyond the scope of his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge, and are therefore required to be dismissed. ([14.1] at 2).

         1. First Amended Complaint

         In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he worked for MARTA from January 1988 through October 2010. ([2] ¶¶ 12-13). He further alleges that, while he worked for MARTA, he was a disabled individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. (Id. ¶ 16). Plaintiff alleges that, on October 17, 2010, he became disabled, and he advised MARTA that he could not work in the same position without a reasonable accommodation, including retraining. (Id. ¶ 30). He further alleges that MARTA refused to provide him with retraining despite having retrained non-disabled employees and having no legitimate reason to deny Plaintiff's request. (Id. ¶¶ 31-34). Plaintiff alleges that MARTA violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation or training. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 41).

         2. Plaintiff's EEOC Charge

         On November 18, 2015, the EEOC received Plaintiff's charge of discrimination. ([14.2]). Plaintiff filed the charge against the “MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan.” (Id. at 1). He alleged that the discrimination took place on September 17, 2015. (Id.). In the narrative portion of the charge, McAdoo wrote:

I was an employee for the above named company and a member of the union for over twenty (20) years until I suffered an on the job injury. On or about October 9, 2012, I was terminated while under the care of my physician from the injury. On September 25, 2014, I was awarded full pension entitlement. On September 17, 2015, I was denied full entitlements.
The Retirement Pension Plan stated the reason for denial was that I was only eligible for 18 months of retirement service credit spent on workman's compensation.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my disability, in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended

         (Id.). The EEOC sent its notice of the discrimination charge to one of ...


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.