George Besada v. ECS Southeast, LLP

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee overruled George Besada’s objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and accepted the recommendation to grant ECS Southeast, LLP’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the record established driving as an essential function of Besada’s Field Technician position and that he was not otherwise qualified under the Americans with Disabilities Act because of his no-driving restriction. The court also rejected Besada’s failure-to-accommodate and interactive-process claims and dismissed the case.

Holdings

1. A district court may deem a movant's properly supported factual assertions undisputed under the applicable local rule when a party fails to timely respond to the statement of undisputed facts, while still reviewing the record and applying the summary-judgment standard.
2. The ability to drive and travel to and between job sites was an essential function of Besada's Field Technician position.
3. Besada could not establish that he was a qualified individual under the ADA because his no-driving restriction prevented him from performing an essential function of his Field Technician position, with or without a reasonable accommodation.
4. Besada could not establish a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim because he was not otherwise qualified for the position and did not identify an objectively reasonable accommodation that would permit him to perform the essential driving function.
5. ECS was not liable for failing to engage in the interactive process because Besada did not identify a feasible reasonable accommodation that would permit him to perform the essential driving function of his position.
6. Besada's contention concerning the failure to provide health insurance did not constitute an independent ADA claim because it was not raised in the complaint or articulated as a basis for the ADA claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly applied de novo review to Besada's specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
2. Whether the undisputed evidence established that driving was an essential function of Besada's Field Technician position.
3. Whether Besada was a qualified individual under the ADA when his no-driving restriction prevented him from performing an essential job function.
4. Whether Besada identified an objectively reasonable accommodation that would allow him to perform the essential functions of his position.
5. Whether ECS could be liable for failing to engage in the ADA interactive process when no reasonable accommodation permitting Besada to perform the essential driving function was identified.

Disposition

dismissed