Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-19-2005
Cole v. Exxon Mobil Corp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2628
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Cole v. Exxon Mobil Corp" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 822.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/822
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2628
JEAN COLE,
Appellant
v.
EXXON MOBILE CORPORATION; KATHERINE COCHRANE,
in her official and individual capacities; DOUGLAS PROOPS,
in his individual and official capacities; HELEN MAHR,
in her individual and official capacities,
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-01617 )
District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 15, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, McKEE and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 19, 2005)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff is a former employee of the Exxon Mobile Corporation who
contends her termination from employment violated the Family Medical Leave Act, 29
1
U.S.C. §§ 2601–2654, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§
10:5-1–10:5-49 (West 2002), and other state law provisions. The District Court granted
summary judgment for the employer. We will affirm.
The facts are well known to the parties and need not be repeated in detail
here. Instead, we will briefly summarize the salient information.
As the District Court noted in its memorandum, the material facts are
undisputed. In the period of more than one year before her termination, the plaintiff’s
work was adversely affected by alcoholism. In accordance with Exxon Mobil’s alcohol
and drug policy, she attended a number of rehabilitation treatment sessions between late
November 1999 and her termination on March 6, 2000, but did not comply with the
company’s requirement for completion of those programs. After warnings proved
insufficient, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated.
The District Court’s memorandum reviewed the plaintiff’s conduct during
the period in question in some detail, and concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to relief
under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination because she failed to meet her
employer’s “legitimate expectations.” Plaintiff repeatedly imbibed alcohol while on the
job as well as on leave and acted in violation of company policy by failing to remain in,
and comply with, rehabilitation treatment programs and “continuously drinking.” The
employer’s provision for treatment of the plaintiff’s problem was a reasonable
accommodation.
2
The District Court also concluded that plaintiff did not establish a state
constitutional violation or a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Finally,
the Court concluded that there had been no violation of the Family and Medical Leave
Act, pointing out that under 29 C.F.R. § 825.114(d) “absence because of the employee’s
use of the substance rather than for treatment does not qualify for FMLA leave.”
Moreover, under 29 C.F.R. § 825.112(g) “treatment for substance abuse does not prevent
an employer from taking employment action against an employee . . . an employee may be
terminated for substance abuse, pursuant to [an established policy] . . . whether or not the
employee is presently taking FMLA leave.” Consequently, the plaintiff’s challenge to the
termination based on the FMLA was rejected.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that the company’s policy was not neutral
because it applied only to alcoholics, a class of individuals who, she contends, are apt to
relapse. The plaintiff’s argument is untenable because the policy was tailored specifically
to the needs of alcoholics and its provisions for after-care reflect a recognition that
relapses can be a problem. Also, the policy was neutral in that it applied to all alcoholics.
The fact that it did not apply to other forms of disability does not make it unlawfully
discriminatory.
We find no error in the District Court’s resolution of the case and,
essentially for the reasons stated in its memorandum, the judgment of the District Court
will be affirmed.
3