NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FABIOLA ROUGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-35686 

D.C. No. 9:21-cv-00056-KLD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Kathleen Louise DeSoto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 13, 2023**

Seattle, Washington

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Fabiola Rough brought this action against her former employer, 

Defendant GlaxoSmithKlein, LLC, under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213. The district court entered summary

judgment in favor of Defendant, and Plaintiff timely appeals. We have jurisdiction 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, on de novo review, Buchanan v. Watkins & Letofsky, 

LLP, 30 F.4th 874, 877 (9th Cir. 2022), affirm.

1. Plaintiff’s first claim is that Defendant failed to accommodate her 

depression and anxiety because it did not transfer her to a position in which she 

would have no contact with a particular co-worker with whom she had a stressful 

relationship. Although Plaintiff argues on appeal that her requested 

accommodation was merely to be reassigned to a position that limited contact with 

the co-worker, her sworn deposition testimony and recommendations from her 

mental health care providers reflect that she sought reassignment to a position 

where she would have no contact at all. We assume, without deciding, that an 

accommodation of that kind can be reasonable in some situations. Nonetheless, we 

conclude that the requested accommodation was not reasonable here. 

Defendant did place the two employees on different shifts, so that they 

would have only very minimal potential contact, when the plant operated two 

shifts. But when the plant changed to a single shift, that option was no longer 

available.1 The ADA did not require Defendant to return to a two-shift schedule or 

to build a separate facility, because such an accommodation would have been an 

1 Although Defendant continued to provide Plaintiff with a limited-contact 

accommodation, those efforts proved unsuccessful, as Plaintiff went on another 

round of short-term disability leave shortly after the co-worker stared at her during 

a mandatory group training session in April 2019. 
3 

undue burden. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 (defining “undue burden” and listing 

factors to be considered in the undue burden analysis). Moreover, it is undisputed 

on this record that all employees are expected to collaborate and that, given the 

small size of the facility, some interaction among employees at the site is 

inevitable. Thus, a transfer to another position at that facility would not have met 

Plaintiff’s demand for no contact. Plaintiff herself acknowledged that a no-contact 

arrangement would have been either difficult or impossible. 

2. Plaintiff’s second claim is that she was forced to resign because 

Defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed 

her to return to work from short-term disability leave. As noted above, we 

disagree with the premise of Plaintiff’s argument; Defendant did not fail to provide 

a reasonable accommodation. Further, Plaintiff’s inference of a nexus between her 

disability and the termination of her employment is undermined by the fact that she 

resigned after accepting a job with another company at nearly twice the pay. See

Hutton v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 273 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2001) (requiring a 

showing that the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of her 

disability). Indeed, Plaintiff continued to collect disability benefits from 

Defendant for a short time even after she began work at her new place of 

employment. 

AFFIRMED.