Kathleen Holbrook v. Anchor Glass Container Corporation

Summary

The court denied Anchor Glass Container Corporation’s motion to reconsider the denial of summary judgment on Kathleen Holbrook’s ADA discriminatory-discharge claim. The court distinguished discriminatory discharge from failure to accommodate and held that Holbrook made a prima facie showing that she was qualified for a Cold End position. Whether Anchor Glass terminated her because of her disability remained a fact question for the jury.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was not warranted because Anchor Glass did not establish an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or a material misapprehension by the court.
2. Holbrook made a prima facie showing that she was a qualified individual because the ADA qualification inquiry includes the job the employee desires, and she testified that she could perform the desired Cold End position without accommodation.
3. Proof that an existing and available vacant position could be used for reassignment is required for the failure-to-accommodate claim at issue, but it is not an element of the separate ADA discriminatory-discharge claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reconsideration was warranted because the court allegedly erred in denying summary judgment on Holbrook's ADA discriminatory-discharge claim.
2. Whether Holbrook was a qualified individual for purposes of her ADA discriminatory-discharge claim even though she had not shown that a vacant position existed for reassignment.

Disposition

other