Summary
The Fifth Circuit reviewed a grant of summary judgment in an Americans with Disabilities Act enforcement action brought by the EEOC on behalf of a nurse terminated shortly after an epileptic seizure. The court held that driving was an essential function of the Field Nurse position, but found genuine disputes concerning whether driving was essential to the Team Leader position, whether reasonable accommodations were available, and which position the employee held at termination. It affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What formulation governs the prima facie case for ADA discriminatory termination in the Fifth Circuit?
- Whether Sones was qualified to perform the essential functions of the Field Nurse or Team Leader position, with or without reasonable accommodation.
- Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning Sones's position, the essential nature of driving for the Team Leader role, possible accommodations, the interactive process, and whether disability motivated her termination.
- Whether the district court properly excluded statements in Sones's EEOC charge as incompetent summary-judgment evidence.
- Whether the EEOC abandoned its separate failure-to-accommodate claim on appeal.
Holdings
- In the Fifth Circuit, a plaintiff alleging ADA discrimination must prove that she has a disability, was qualified for the job, and was subjected to an adverse employment decision on account of her disability. The plaintiff need not separately prove that she was replaced by or treated less favorably than a nondisabled employee.
- Driving was an essential function of the Field Nurse position, and the summary-judgment record did not show a feasible reasonable accommodation that would allow Sones to perform the substantial daily driving required by that position. Sones therefore was not qualified to serve as a Field Nurse.
- Genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on whether Sones was qualified for the Team Leader position, including whether driving was an essential function, whether transportation or other accommodations were reasonable, whether computer-related duties could be accommodated, and whether LHC engaged in the required interactive process.
- The EEOC presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether Sones was terminated because of her disability and whether disability was a motivating factor in the termination.
- Statements in Sones's verified EEOC charge were competent summary-judgment evidence because the statements attributed to LHC employees were party admissions, the charge was not offered for the truth of whether Sones was actually a liability, and the charge was based on Sones's personal knowledge.
- The EEOC abandoned its separate failure-to-accommodate claim by failing to identify and adequately argue it in its opening appellate brief, so summary judgment was affirmed on that claim.
Key quotations
“To establish a prima facie discrimination claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he was qualified for the job; [and] (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision on account of his disability.” (773 F.3d at 695)
“Under the ADA, once the employee presents a request for an accommodation, the employer is required to engage in [an] interactive process so that together they can determine what reasonable accommodations might be available.” (773 F.3d at 702)
Factual background
LHC employed Kristy Sones as a registered nurse and was considering or had promoted her to a Team Leader position when she suffered a grand mal seizure at work. After returning to work, Sones had a driving restriction and reported difficulty with computer-related duties and memory because of her antiseizure medication. LHC terminated her by telephone shortly thereafter, with the stated explanation that she was a liability, while the record also contained evidence of performance deficiencies and statements linking the termination to her disability.
Procedural history
The EEOC filed an enforcement action under Title I of the ADA on behalf of Kristy Sones after LHC terminated her employment following an epileptic seizure. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted LHC's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Sones was not qualified for the Field Nurse or Team Leader positions and that the EEOC failed to show pretext. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Proceed consistently with the opinion on the discriminatory-discharge claim, including the factual disputes concerning whether Sones was promoted to Team Leader, whether LHC could reasonably accommodate her disability, whether LHC engaged in the required interactive process, and whether she was terminated because of her disability. Summary judgment remains affirmed on the separate failure-to-accommodate claim and insofar as Sones was a Field Nurse and therefore was not qualified for that position.