Federal Magistrate Recommends Partial Summary Judgment in FMLA and Disability Case Against Douglas County

A federal magistrate judge in the Northern District of Georgia has recommended granting in part and denying in part Douglas County’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by former Deputy Fire Chief Eric Phillips. Chief Phillips was fired in 2023 after he failed to obtain Georgia state certification as required by state law.

Chief Phillips was hired as Deputy Chief in July 2021 and was required to obtain Georgia Firefighter Standards and Training Council (GFSTC) certification within one year. The certification included hazardous materials awareness, as well as a physical agility test (PAT). However, the standard was increased to hazmat ops in January, 2022. 

In June 2022, Chief Phillips suffered second-degree burns to his knees during a training exercise, leading to an infection, and later stress fractures. He claimed these work-related injuries limited his ability to walk and interfered with scheduling the required training.

Chief Phillips claims that then-Chief Roderick Jolivette granted him an extension for “all certification requirements” due to his medical condition, though Chief Jolivette never submitted a written extension request to GFSTC as required by regulation. Chief Phillips completed the hazmat training in July and August 2022 and later passed the PAT in February 2023. However, in completing the PAT, he aggravated the stress fractures, further complicating his recovery.

Shortly thereafter, Acting Chief Miles Allen removed Chief Phillips from duty after learning from GFSTC that his hazmat training had not been completed within the original deadline of July 31, 2022. Chief Phillips took FMLA leave, returned to work in a non-firefighting capacity, and was terminated in July 2023 for failing to timely complete his certification.

Chief Phillips sued Douglas County, alleging:

• FMLA interference and retaliation related to his removal from duty and termination.
• ADA and Rehabilitation Act disability discrimination for failure to accommodate his knee injuries by extending certification deadlines.
• ADA and Rehabilitation Act retaliation tied to his termination after requesting accommodation.

Here is more coverage of the original filing of the complaint.

Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III recommended:

• Denying summary judgment on Chief Phillips’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claims, finding factual disputes about whether his knee injuries constituted a disability and whether his extension requests covered all certification requirements, including hazmat training. The court noted evidence that any breakdown in the accommodation process could be attributable to the County, not Chief Phillips.
• Allowing ADA and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims to proceed for similar reasons, citing possible causation between Chief Phillips’ accommodation requests and his termination.
• Denying summary judgment on FMLA interference and retaliation claims, finding disputes over the timing of the County’s actions, its knowledge of Chief Phillips’ impending FMLA leave, and whether the leave factored into his removal and discharge.
• Granting summary judgment only as to certain narrow issues where Chief Phillips lacked supporting evidence, but leaving the core claims for trial.

The Magistrate rejected the County’s argument that Chief Phillips’ knee injuries were merely “abrasions,” noting extensive evidence of burns, infection, stress fractures, surgery, and long-term walking limitations. The ADA Amendments Act’s broad definition of disability was central to the court’s analysis.

There were material factual disputes about whether the County failed to follow required procedures for obtaining certification extensions and whether it treated similarly situated employees more favorably. The decision noted that another firefighter, Brittany Bell, was granted a retroactive extension for medical reasons despite a significantly delayed certification.

The case now proceeds to the district judge for review of the magistrate’s recommendation, and potentially to trial if the recommendations are adopted. Here is a copy of the decision: