Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02270/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02270-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dan Brouillette
Appellee
Department of Energy
Appellee
Sheri Grell
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2270

___________________________

Sheri Grell

Plaintiff Appellant

v.

Department of Energy; Secretary Dan Brouillette

Defendants Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

 Submitted: January 29, 2020

Filed: February 4, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Sheri Grell appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment and

denial of her cross-motion for summary judgment on her claim that her former

1The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 19-2270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Entry ID: 4877611
employer, the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”), failed to accommodate

her disabilities, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), 29 U.S.C.

§§ 701 to 794g.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude summary judgment was proper

because the uncontroverted facts established the DOE accommodated Grell’s

disabilities, to the extent she requested specific accommodations and those requests

were reasonable. See Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas City, 214 F.3d

1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2000) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment);see also

Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. &E.R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 712 (8th Cir. 2003) (describing

elements of prima facie case for failure-to-accommodate claimunder Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”)); Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 911-12 (8th Cir. 1998)

(stating cases interpreting ADA and RA are “interchangeable”); cf. Schaffhauser v.

United Parcel Serv., Inc., 794 F.3d 899, 905 (8th Cir. 2015) (An employee “must

establish both a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability and a failure

to accommodate it.”). We further conclude the uncontroverted factsshowed the DOE

engaged in an interactive processin an attempt to ascertain Grell’s needs and identify

reasonable accommodations. See Schaffhauser, 794 F.3d at 906 (stating the

employee has the burden to alert, and initiate an interactive process with, the

employer to determine whether, and, if so, what accommodation is necessary based

on the relevant details of the disability).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-2270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Entry ID: 4877611