[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 29 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cv -0 03 33 -MTT CYNTHIA MARIE IVEY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us FIRS T QUALITYRETAIL SERVICE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Cynt hi a Iv ey , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 1 of 15su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Fir stQual it y

Ret ai l Se rv ic e (“ Fi rs t Qu al it y ”) as to he r di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n c la im un de r th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Actof 19 90 (“ ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 01 , et s eq . Forth e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we 1 affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o F irs t Qu al ity . I. Inhe r co m

pl ai nt , Ive y

all eg edth atFir stQual it y , a m an uf actur er o f di sp os ab le di ap ers , di sc riminat edag ai ns t h er u nd er the ADA bas edon he r di sabi li ty relat edto he r car pa l tun ne l s y

nd ro m e. Sh e fu rth er al le ge d tha t Fi rs t Qua li ty info rm edhe r th atsh e wou ldno lo ng er re cei ve li gh t dut y workan d t ha t i t subs eque nt ly term in at edhe r. Ive y fil edex hi bi ts in supp ort o f he r al le ga ti on s. In cl ud edwas alet te r th atsh e subm it te d t o F irs t Qu al it y be fo re h er t erm in at io n, st at in g t ha t s he co ul d p erfo rm th e es se nt ia l dut ie s o f he r job with a cco m m od at io ns . Sh e li st edth e fo ll owi ng acco m m od at io ns : (1 ) “ ro ta te ev ery 15 m in ut es ” co nc ern in g “ rep et it iv e u se ,” “ vi br at ory to ol ,” “ awkwardus e,” “ gr ip pi ng ,” an d

“ st ren uo us us e,” (2 ) pr ov id in g h er wi th a st ep pl at fo rm , or (3 ) rea ss ig nm en t t o an ot he r po si ti on . Also in cl ud edwere p hysic ia n- pr ep aredworkst atus rep orts th at Although Ivey ’s complaint did not specifica lly raise a reta liation claim, the district c ourt 1 addre ssed whether I vey had shown a prima facie case of retaliation in its order g ranting summary judgme nt. Howeve r, Ivey has abandone d this claim by not addre ssing it in her initial brief on appea l. See Lucas v . W

.W . Grainger, Inc . , 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 2 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 2 of 15refl ect edth atIve y was c om pl et el y di sabl edan d c ou ldno t p erfo rm an y type o f work i n Au gu st20 07 an d M arch 20 08 . A workst atus rep ort d at edNov em be r 20 07 , refl ect edth atsh e co ul d re tu rnto work , bu t i t re st ric te d h er t o l ift in g n o m or e th an5 p ou nd s an d t o o nl y us in g h er l eftarm

oc cas io na ll y , m ean in g 1 to 33 pe rcen t of th e ti m e. The re po rt s ta te d t ha t t he res tri ct io ns were p erm an en t u nl es s s he de ci de d t o h av e fu rth er s ur ge ry . W ork s ta tu s re po rts with d at es fro m Ju ne to Octo be r 20 08 , refl ect edth atsh e co ul d u se he r ha ndan d a rm in freque nt ly, m ean in g 0 t o 2 pe rcen t o f th e ti m e o r 1 t o 5 0 t im es . This li m it at io n e nc om pa ss edrep et it iv e us e, us e o f vi br at ory

to ol s, awkwardus e, gr ip pi ng us e, an d s tre nu ou s u se . Fi rs t Qu al it y

fil eda m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t o n t he gro un d t ha t Iv ey co ul d n otsh ow t ha t s he was aqu al ifi edin di vi du al who co ul d p erfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f he r fo rm er p os it io n. On e o f Iv ey ’s ph y si ci an s h adcert ifi edth atsh e ha d l im it edus e o f he r ha nd s an d a rm s an d t ha t thi s l im it at io n was pe rm an en t wit ho utfurth er s ur ge ry . Her form er p os it io n’s jo b d es cri pt io n i nv ol ve d l ift in g, op erat in g e qu ip m en t, fre qu en t upp er arm m ov em en t, an d re pe ti ti ve tas ks , andsh e ha d a dm it te d t ha t s he co ul d n otpe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f he r job . Firs t Qua li ty argu edth atno reas on ab le acco m m od at io ns ex is te d, co nt en di ng th atitha d no leg al du ty to p ro vi de li gh t dut y work . Furt he r, Iv ey ’s reque stto rot at e th ro ug h di ffer en t jo b dut ie s was no t re co m m en de d b y

a ph y si ci anan d n o o ne els e h adth is 3 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 3 of 15sc he du le . Firs t Qu al it y subm it te d v ari ou s ex hi bi ts with i ts m ot io n. Acco rd in g t o t he affi da vi t o f Bar bara Co he n, a Hu m anRes ou rces Man ag er fo r Fi rs t Qu al it y

at t he ti m e o f th e aff

id av it ’s exe cu ti on , Firs t Qu al it y ha d pr ev io us ly em

pl oyed Iv ey

as apro du ct io n t ech ni ci an . Ive y in jure d h er wri st s i n May 200 7, an d aph y si ci ansubs eque nt ly perfo rm edsu rg ery on he r ri gh t wri stto al le vi at e car

pa l tun ne l s y

nd ro m e. Fro m

Sep te m be r to Decem

be r 20 07 , Ive y pe rfo rm edli gh t duty

work , whi ch in cl ud edswee pi ng an d p ap erwo rk , th ro ug h F irs t Qua li ty’ s p ro gr am

forem pl oyees wh o e xp eri en ce wo rk -rel at edin juri es , bu t ar e ex pe ct edto reco ve r. The p ro gr am was u na va il ab le to em

pl oyees wi th pe rm an en t in juri es or n on -wo rk -rel at edin juri es . On Ma rch 27 , 20 08 , Firs t Qu al it y in fo rm ed Iv ey th atitwas re m ov in g h er fro m li gh t dut y

workan d p la ci ng he r on work er’s co m pe ns at io n l eav e b ecau se Ive y ’s tre at in g p hysic ia n s ta te d tha t t he res tri ct io ns on Ive y ’s lef

t wri stwere p erm an en t u nl es s s he ha d s ur ge ry . Firs t Qu al ity off ered to pro vi de Ive y

with l eav e an d b en efi ts to ass is t h er i n o bt ai ni ng th e su rg ery, bu t Iv ey refu se d. Co he n fu rth er at te st edth atFir stQual it y ha d apo li cy

to rem ov e em

pl oyees fro m th e p ayro ll who were o n o ccupa ti on al -in jury leav e o f ab se nc e fo r lo ng er tha n 18 0 d ay s an d h adno t re cei ve d a n e xt en si onof l eav e. Afte r Iv ey ha d b een on lea ve fo r ov er 1 80 da y s, Co he n a sk edIve y if s he wis he d t o re qu es t anex te ns io n o f he r 4 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 4 of 15le av e. Iv ey

res po nd edby sen di ng Co he n atre at m en t an d wo rk st atus rep ort t ha t in di cat edth atIve y

co ul d o nl y

us e h er h an ds zero to two pe rcen t o f th e ti m e. Fir st Qua li ty sub se qu en tl y

de te rm in edth atitha d n o o pe ni ng s t ha t wo ul d a cco m m od at e he r m ed ic al res tri ct io ns , andterm in at edhe r em pl oym en t o n J an ua ry

19 , 20 09 . Acco rd in g t o t he job de sc rip ti on of t he pro du ct io n t ech ni ci anpo si ti on da te d aft er Fi rs t Qu al it y

pl acedIve y

on lea ve , ov er two- th ird s o f th e p os it io n i nv ol ve d us in g h an ds “ to fin ge r, ha nd le , feel ” an d re ach in g wi th ha nd s an d a rm s. Two-t hi rd s o r m or e o f th e p os it io n i nv ol ve d l ift in g v ari ou s wei gh ts , in cl ud in g up to 50 po un ds m or e th antwo -th ird s o f th e ti m e. A pri m ary ta skin vo lv edpa ck ag in g op erat io ns , whi ch in vo lv edfreque ntarm m ov em en t an d i nc lu de d a ss em bl in g bo xe s an d p ic ki ng up di ap er b ag s an d p la ci ng th em in bo xe s. Iv ey tes ti fie d i n ade po si ti on th at , whi le em pl oyed atFir stQual it y , sh e worke d 1 2- ho ursh ift s fo r 3 d ay s i n arow a ndth enha d 4 da y s o ff o f work. As a pr oduc ti on tec hn ic ia n, Iv ey pa ck ag eddi sp os ab le di ap ers at t he fro ntof am ach in e an d, wh enth e m ach in e was ba ck edup , us edhe r hand s an d a rm s “ co ns tant ly.” She ha d t o v ert ic al ly tran sf

er d iape r ba gs weig hi ng up to 8 p ou nd s, as well as l iftbo xe s weig hi ng up to 50 po un ds . After s he ha d wo rk edforFir stQual it y for a pe rio d o f ti m e, sh e al so be ga n t o a ss is t t he lo ad in g o f m at eri al s atth e b ackof t he m ach in e an d ru nn in g t he m ach in e. Thi s wo rkpri m ari ly inv ol ve d u si ng he r ha nd s. 5 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 5 of 15Iv ey

furth er t es ti fie d t ha t, fo ll owi ng he r su rg ery on he r le ft wri strel at edto he r car pa l tun ne l s y

nd ro m e, sh e b eg anto pe rfo rm li gh t duty

work , con si st in g o f swe ep in g fl oo rs an d p ap erwo rk . She ev en tu al ly retu rn edto th e d iape r m ach in e, whe re s he lo ad edba gs an d p ic ke d up d iape rs with h er h an ds , bu t s he di d n ot pa ck ag e th e d iape rs . Ive y st at edth ata m anwith b urne d h an ds ha d a ls o p erfo rm ed li gh t dut y work , bu t s he co ul d n otrem em be r hi s n am e o r supe rv is or . On Feb ru ary 22 , 20 08 , Firs t Qu al it y

in fo rm edhe r th atitwou ldno lo ng er o fferhe r li gh t dut y work andth atitha d p la cedhe r on work ers ’ co m pe ns at io n l eav e, wit ho uthe r fi rs t reque st in g i t. Tha t was he r la stda y on th e job . Iv ey furth er t es ti fie d t ha t h er wri tt enreque stforanacco m m od at io n t o F irs t Qua li ty, in vo lv in g ro ta ti ng ev ery 15 m in ut es , m ean t t ha t ev ery ti m e sh e u se d h er ha nd s i n asp eci fic m an ne r fo r 15 m in ut es , sh e wou ldth enres t fo r 5 m inut es . No ph y si ci anha d re co m

m en de d t he rot at in g s ch edul e, bu t ra th er the sch edul e was ba se d o n h er es ti m at io n o f wha t s he co ul d d o. Sh e was un aware of a ny oth er pe rs on work in g tha t ty

pe of s ch edul e. Neve rth el es s, s he tes ti fie d t ha t Fi rs t Qu al it y ha d a“ qu al it y

de pa rtment” po si ti on th atha d aworksch edul e th atwou ld acco m m od at e h er. Sh e h adals o re qu es te d ast ep pl at fo rm forus e in th e p ack ag in g areainord er t o m od ify the awkwardpo si ti on of h er h an ds whi le do in g re pe ti ti ve work. Iv ey

st at edth atpe rfo rm in g t ho se job du ti es sh e h adbe fo re h er i nju ry 6 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 6 of 15requi redhe r to do m or e rep et it io us workth anhe r ph y si ci anst at edth atsh e co ul d

do witho utacco m

m od at io n. Iv ey fil eda res po ns e in op po si ti onto su m m ary jud gm en t. In th e fac t se ct io n o f he r res po ns e, sh e st at edth atothe r em pl oyees a ndhe r te am

lea de r ha ras se d h er, l au gh edat h er, an d re ferr edto he r as “ Ro bo Co p.” Next , sh e arg ue d th atsh e was a qu al ifi edin di vi du al be cau se sh e p erfo rm edhe r es se nt ia l dut ie s wi th th e acc omm od at io n o f a h an d b race fro m May to J un e 2 00 7, an d, fo ll owi ng he r su rg ery, sh e p erfo rm edth e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f li gh t dut y work . She arg ue d t ha t a work s ta tu s re po rt i nd ic at edth atsh e co ul d p erfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s b y us in g re pe ti ti ve ha ndm ov em en ts an d t he n re st in g. Sh e al so st at edth ata $6 0 pl at fo rm co ul d b e p ur ch as edforhe r to ass is t h er wi thhe r po si ti on . Fo ll owi ng a rep ly from

Fir stQual ity , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d F irs t Qua li ty’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The co urt fi rs t n ot edth atth e p art ie s d id no t d is pu te th atIve y

was d is ab le d a t t he ti m e o f th e al le ge d d is cri m in at io n, b ut rat he r di sp ut edwhet he r sh e was a qu al ifi edin di vi du al . The co urt d et erm in edth at th e p ro du ct io n t ech ni ci an ’s ess en ti al fun ct io ns in cl ud edli fti ng an d re pe ti ti ve ha nd us e an d tha t Iv ey ’s pro po se d a cco m m od at io ns were ei th er unr eas on ab le or wo ul d no t al lo w herto pe rfo rm

he r po si ti on ’s ess en ti al fun ct io ns . The co urt i nd ic at ed th atIve y ap pe aredto rai se a ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m in he r res po ns e, bu t 7 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 7 of 15de te rm in edth at , bec au se he r co m pl ai ntdi d n otin cl ud e th e cl ai m , th e co urt wo ul d no t co ns id er i t. II. On ap pe al , Ive y

arg ue s tha t t he di stric t co urt erredin no t ap pl y in g the ADA Am en dm en ts Act o f 20 08 (“ ADAAA”) in it s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t an d t ha t s he ha s a d is ab il it y . She furth er ar gu es th atFir stQual it y di d n otha ve a 2 job de sc rip ti on of h er fo rm er p os it io n u nt il aft er i t p la cedhe r on lea ve , and , th us , it can no t s ta te th atsh e was un ab le to pe rfo rm he r job with re as on ab le acco m m od at io ns . She ass ert s tha t an em pl oyer’s fai lu re t o p ro vi de li gh t dut y work can co ns ti tu te a vi ol at io n o f th e ADA. W e rev ie w th e g ran ti ng of s umm ary jud gm en t de no vo , con st ru in g t he fact s in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y . Hol lyv. Cla ir so n In du s. , LLC, 49 2 F .3d12 47 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A di st ric t co urt s ha ll grantsu m m ary jud gm en t wh ere t he ev id en ce s ho ws t ha t t he re i s n o g en ui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Id. Pro se Although most of the alleg ations in Ivey ’s complaint occur red befor e J anuar

y 1, 2009, the 2 eff ective date of the ADAAA , First Quality terminated Ivey afte r that date. See Pub. L . No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553. Among other things, the ADAAA expanded the definition of “disability .” Id. § 4. On appeal, First Quality do es n o t dispute that Ivey was disabled, but rathe r di sputes whether Ivey was a qualified individual, which does not implicate the ADAAA . Thus, we do not need to decide whether the ADAAA applies retroa ctively to Ivey and do not addre ss Ivey ’s arguments in her brief that she wa s disabled. 8

Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 8 of 15pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t s ta nd ardth anth os e draft edby atto rn ey s an d

are l ib eral ly con st ru ed . Box er X v. Harris , 43 7 F .3d11 07 , 11 10 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). To es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n u nd er the ADA, a pla in ti ff m us t s ho w th at(1) sh e is di sabl ed ; (2 ) sh e is a qu al ifi edin di vi du al ; an d (3 ) sh e was subjec te d t o u nl awfu l d is cri m in at io n b ecau se of h er d is ab il it y . Hol ly , 49 2 F.3 d a t 1 25 5- 56 . To sh ow t ha t s he is a qu al ifi edin di vi du al , a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th atsh e can pe rfo rm

th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f th e em pl oym en t p os it io n t ha t s he ho ld s wi th or wi th ou t re as on ab le acco m m od at io ns . Id. at 1 25 6. An acco m m od at io n i s re as on ab le an d n eces sa ry un de r th e ADA on ly if itwil l en ab le th e em pl oyee to pe rfo rm

th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f th e job . Id. Howev er, i f th e em pl oyee is un ab le to pe rfo rm aness en ti al fun ct io n o f he r job , eve n wi th an acco m m od at io n, t he n s he is no t a qua li fie d i nd iv idua l co ve redun de r th e ADA. Id. The e m pl oyee ha s the bu rd enof i de nt ifyin g areas on ab le acco m m od at io n t ha t wou ldall ow h er t o p erfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f he r job . Ear l v. Mer vyn s, In c. , 20 7 F .3d13 61 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Whe th er a fu nc ti on of apo si ti on is ess en ti al is ev al ua te d o n acas e-b y -cas e ba si s b y ex am in in g anu m

be r of fact or s. D’Ang el o v . ConAgr a Fo od s, In c. , 42 2 F.3 d 1 22 0, 1 23 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Con si de rat io n i s g iv ento anem pl oyer’s jud gm en t o f wha t i t b el ie ve s t o b e th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f a p os it io n, an d a ny 9 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 9 of 15writ te n d es cri pt io n o f th e p os it io n, wh ic h t he em pl oyer pre pa redforadve rti si ng or in te rv ie win g app li can ts for th e job , is co ns id eredev id en ce o f a p os it io n’s es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s. Id . Also co ns id eredare fa ct or s s uc h a s t he am ou ntof t im e sp en t o n t he job pe rfo rm in g t he fun ct io n a ndth e co ns eque nc es of n otrequi rin g t he em pl oyee to pe rfo rm th e fu nc ti on . Id

. Pri oracco m

m od at io ns do no t m ak e anacco m m od at io n re as on ab le . W

oo d v. Gre en , 32 3 F .3d13 09 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e fac t t ha t an em pl oyer ha d p rev io us ly gran te d i nd efi ni te lea ve s o f ab se nc e d idno t m ak e a reque stforan ot he r in de fin it e le av e o f ab se nc e a rea so nabl e acc omm od at io n) . The ADA cov ers pe op le who can pe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f th ei r job s p res en tl y orin th e imm ed ia te futur e. Id. W e h av e h el d t ha t “ anem pl oyer is no t re qu ire d t o acco m m od at e an em

pl oyee in an y

m an ne r inwhi chth atem pl oyee de si res .” Ear l , 20 7 F .3dat 1 36 7. Th us , th e ADA do es no t re qu ire anem pl oyer to eli m in at e an es se nt ia l fu nc ti on of an e m pl oyee’s job , bu t i t m ay

requi re an em

pl oyer to res tru ctur e a p art ic ul ar job by alte rin g o r el im in at in g s om e o f it s m arg in al fu nc ti on s. Lu ca s v. W.W . Gra in ge r, In c. , 25 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Fu rth er, al th ou gh th e ADA m ay requi re the em

pl oyer to reas si gn a di sabl ed em pl oyee, th atdu ty doe s n otrequi re the em pl oyer to m ov e an othe r em pl oyee fro m a p os it io n i n o rd er t o a cco m m od at e th e d is ab le d e m

pl oyee orto pro m ot e th e 10 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 10 of 15di sabl edem

pl oyee. Id. at 1 25 6. As Fi rs t Qu al it y

do es no t d is pu te th atIve y was d is ab le d, the cen tra l i ss ue on ap pe al is whet he r sh e was a qu al ifi edin di vi du al who co ul d p erfo rm th e es se nt ia l job fun ct io ns of apro du ct io n t ech ni ci an , witho utacco m m od at io n o r wit h a reas on ab le acco m

m od at io n. Th e p os it io n’s jo b d es cri pt io n i nd ic at edth aton e o f th e p rimary

tas ks was p ack ag in g o pe rat io ns , whi ch in vo lv edfreque ntarm m ov em en t. Iv ey

co nt en ds th atth e job de sc rip ti on forhe r fo rm er p os it io n was da te d t wo m on th s af

te r Fi rs t Qu al ity

pl acedhe r on lea ve , and , th us , no cri te ria ex is te d t o m eas ur e whe th er s he co ul d p erfo rm he r job with re as on ab le acco m m od at io ns . Howev er, wh atco ns ti tu te s an ess en ti al fun ct io n i s n otba se d so le ly on t he em

pl oyer’s job de sc rip ti on , bu t i s ev al ua te d b as edon va rio us fact or s. D’Ang el o , 42 2 F .3dat 1 23 0. Inth is cas e, Iv ey ’s own de po si ti on tes ti m on y in di cat es th atth e p os it io n i nv ol ve d “ co ns ta nt []” us e o f he r ha nd s, l ift in g, an d rep et it iv e h an d m ov em en ts du rin g t he pa ck ag in g o f di ap ers . Thu s, i n l ig htof Iv ey ’s own tes ti m on y , andwitho utrel y in g o n F irs t Qu al it y ’s job de sc rip ti on , we co nc lu de th aton e o f th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f Iv ey ’s po si ti on in vo lv edpa ck ag in g di ap ers by usi ng he r ha nd s qui ck ly andrep et it iv el y . Bec au se Ive y

di d n otarg ue th atsh e co ul d p erfo rm th es e es se nt ia l jo b fu nc ti on s wi th ou t an acco m m od at io n, we n ex t ad dr es s wh ethe r Iv ey sat is fie d h er 11 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 11 of 15bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t a r eas on ab le acco m m od at io n e xi st ed . Ear l , 20 7 F .3dat 13 67 . Ive y

ass ert s o n app eal th atpro vi di ng he r wit h ape rm an en t p os it io n in vo lv in g l ig htdu ty w ork, wh ic h d idno t i nv ol ve th e p ack ag in g o f di ap ers , was a reas on ab le acco m

m od at io n. Ho wev er, the ADA didno t re qu ire Fir stQual it y to pe rm an en tl y

pro vi de he r wit h l ig htdu ty w ork, as th is wou ldrequi re i t t o e li m in at e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f th e p ro du ct io n t ech ni ci anjob as i t ex is te d, s pe ci fic al ly, th e rep et it iv e h an d m ov em en ts in vo lv edin th e p ack ag in g o f di ap ers . Se e Lu ca s , 25 7 F.3 d a t 1 26 0. Th e u nd is pu te d e vi de nc e sh ows th atFir stQual it y on ly offer ed em pl oyees l ig htdu ty w ork o n atem po rary bas is forth os e em pl oyees wi th work rel at edin juri es who were ex pe ct edto reco ve r. Thu s, s he fai le d t o s ho w th at pe rm an en tl y

off eri ng he r li gh t dut y

workwas areas on ab le acco m m od at io n. Iv ey als o p ro po se d the fol lo win g a cco m m od at io ns in a le tt er t o F irs t Qua li ty: (1) alt ern at in g t as ks an d t ak in g a5-minu te bre akaft er u si ng he r hand s ev ery 15 m in ut es ; (2 ) ut il iz in g ast ep pl at fo rm ; an d (3 ) rea ss ig nm en t. Fi rs t, wi th res pe ctto Ive y ’s pro po se d ro ta ti ng -h an d- us e acc omm od at io n a ndhe r st ep pl at fo rm acco m m od at io n, Iv ey

ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t t he se wou ldall ow h er t o p ack ag e di ap ers by usi ng he r ha nd s qui ck ly andrep et it iv el y . The p hysic ia n- pr ep aredwork st atus rep orts th atIve y

fil edin th e d is tri ctco urt p ro vi de d t ha t Iv ey was l im it edto en ga gi ng in rep et it iv e, awkward , gri pp in g, o r st ren uo us us e o f he r ha nd s 12 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 12 of 15in freque nt ly, m ean in g 0 to 2 p erce ntof t he ti m e o r 1 t o 5 0 t im es pe r a d ay . In l ig ht

of th e li m it at io ns co nt ai ne d i n t he workst atus rep orts an d t he lac k o f an y ev id en ce de m on st rat in g h ow, i n fa ct , th es e acc omm od at io ns wou ldall ow h er t o re pe ti ti ve ly an d qui ck ly use he r hand s, Iv ey di d n otsh ow tha t t he se acco m m od at io ns wou ld al lo w herto pe rfo rm

th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f he r fo rm er job . Next , Ive y ha s fai le d t o p res en t an y

ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t h er re qu es t t o b e rea ss ig ne d i s a reas on ab le acco m

m od at io n. Al th ou gh , in he r de po si ti on , sh e in di cat edth atsh e wis he d t o b e rea ss ig ne d t o the qu al it y de pa rtment, s he pre se nt edno ev id en ce o f an y va can ci es withi n i t, an d F irs t Qu al it y was n otrequi redun de r th e ADA to pr om ot e Iv ey

or r eas si gn he r to anoc cupi edpo si ti on . Se e Lu ca s , 25 7 F .3dat 12 56 . Thu s, s he fai le d t o s ho w th atreas si gn m en t was a reas on ab le acco m m od at io n. Bec au se Ive y

di d n otpro po se a reas on ab le acco m m od at io n t ha t wo ul d a ll ow he r to pe rfo rm

th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f he r job , sh e fai le d t o s ho w th atsh e was a qu al ifi edin di vi du al an d, t hu s, es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sabi li ty di sc riminat io n u nd er the ADA. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Fir stQual it y

on Ive y ’s di sabi li ty di sc riminat io n c la im . III. 13 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 13 of 15Iv ey

rai se s a h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t cl ai m in he r in it ia l b rie f an d co nt en ds th atsh e was ha ras se d a ndcal le d n am es rel at edto he r weari ng a ha nd br ace a t Fi rs t Qu al it y . She reque st s u s t o b e le ss st rin ge ntin requi rin g h er t o h av e rai se d the cla im

be lo w, as s he is pro ceed in g pr o s e . A com pl ai ntsh ou ldco nt ai n “ a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 8(a )(2 ). Altho ug h t hi s st an da rdis to be ap pl ie d l ib eral ly, a de fen dantis no t re qu ire d t o i nf er al l p os si bl e cl ai m s t ha t co ul d a ris e o utof f act s s etforth in th e co m

pl ai ntat t he su m

m ary jud gm en t s ta ge . Gilmou r v. Ga te s, McDo na ld an d C o. , 38 2 F .3d13 12 , 13 15 (11 th Ci r. 20 04 ). At th e su m

m ary jud gm en t s ta ge , th e p ro pe r pr oc edur e fo r a p la in ti ff t o as se rt ane w cla im

is to am en d t he co m

pl ai ntin acco rd an ce wi th Fed .R.Ci v.P . 15 (a). Id. Thu s, a c la im

m ay no t b e rai se d i n ares po ns e to a de fen da nt ’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Id. ; se e Irao la &CIA, S.A. v. Ki mbe rl y-Cl ark Co rp . , 32 5 F .3d 12 74 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (p ro vi di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly deci de d n ot to all ow a p la in ti ff t o ra is e a n ew cl ai m at t he su m

m ary jud gm en t s ta ge ). Altho ug h we li be ral ly con st ru e th e p le ad in gs of pr o s e li ti ga nt s, we n ev ert he le ss requi re th em to co nf orm to pro cedur al rul es . Se e Alb ra v. Adva n, In c. , 49 0 F .3d82 6, 8 27 , 82 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) (ho ld in g t ha t pr o s e pl ai nt iff fai le d t o p ro pe rly effectservi ce

14 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 14 of 15on de fen da ntin acco rd an ce wi th Fed .R.Ci v.P . 4(c ) an d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s

gr an t o f de fen dant ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s was th us pro pe r); se e a ls o Go ld smi th v. Ci tyof Atmo re , 99 6 F .2d11 55 , 11 61 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (n ot in g t ha t a pr o s e li ti ga nt ’s com

pl ai ntwas d efi ci en t b ecau se sh e fai le d t o i nc lu de in he r co m pl ai nta de m an d fo r th e rel ie f so ug htin co m pl ia nc e wit h F ed .R.Ci v.P . 8(a )). The re ar e n o fa ct s i n Iv ey ’s com pl ai ntth atin di cat e th atsh e in te nd edto rai se a h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t cl ai m , and , th us , sh e fai le d t o c om pl y with Fed .R.Cri m .P. 8. Iv ey

fir stm en ti on edth e fac ts co nc ern in g h er h os ti le work en vi ro nm en t cl ai m

in res po ns e to Fir stQual it y ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly decl in edto ad dr es s h er cl ai m be cau se sh e d idno t in cl ud e th e cl ai m

in he r co m

pl ai nt . Se e Gilmou r , 38 2 F .3dat 1 31 5.

IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o F irs t Qu al ity . AFFIRMED.

15 Case: 11-12294 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 15 of 15