A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT RO BE RT BU NDY,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. CH AVE S CO UNT Y B OAR D OF CO M M I SSI O N ER S,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 2154 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 05 - 12 2 M CA - RL P)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HO LM ES , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t R o b e rt B u n d ya p p e a ls f ro m th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t in hi s di s abi l i t y - di s cr i m i nat i on cas e. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291, a n d we a ffi r m.D r . H ens al l at eri ndi cat ed dur i ng hi s depos i t i on thatt he pr obabl e dur at i on 1 of M r . B undy ’ s “i ncapa ci t y ” w as t hr ee t o s i x m onths , A pl t . A pp. at153, butt hat “h e c o u ld [ h av e] return [e d ] t o so m e fo rm o f li g h ter, li m it ed d u tyif i t w ere a v a ila b le ,” a t th e e n d o f N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 , i d. at81.

-2- B AC KGROU ND M r. B u n d yw o rk e d a s a g u a rd a t th e C h a v e s C o u n tyD e ten tio n C e n ter in R os w el l , N ew M exi co. O n O ct ober9, 2003, he w as i nj ur ed i n a ca racc i dentand h ad to h av e h is l ef

t arm am p u tat ed ab o v e the elbo w . T h e n ex t day , the C o u n ty ’s hum an- r es our ce s peci al i s t , Shei l a N unez, m ai l ed a l et t ert o M r . B undy ’ s hom e, s t at i ng t hathe w as bei ng pl ace d on l eave undert he Fami l yand M edi cal L eave Act( FM LA) , a n d t h a th e n e e d e d t o h a v e h i s p h y s i c i a n fi l l o u tt h e e n c l o s e d FM LA ce rt ifi ca ti o n fo rm . M r. B u n d y ’s ph y sici an , D r. F red H en sal, co m p let ed the fo rm o n O ctob er 2 8 an d return ed it , ind icati n g that M r. B u n d yw as u n ab le t o p erfo rm anyki nd of w or k and thati tw as nece s s aryforM r . B undyt o be abs entfr om w o rk . T h e fin a l p a ra g ra p h o f N u n e z ’s le tter d ire c ted M r. B u n d yto “ p re se n t a 1 ‘release to return to w o rk’ c erti fica te fro m [h is] h ea lth ca re p rov ider . . . b efo re [he c oul d] r es um e w or k. ” A pl t . A pp. at51. I n l at e O ct ober2003, aft erbei ng r el eas ed fr om t he hos pi t al , M r . B undym et w i t h N unez a nd di s cus s ed “the pape rw or k and how t he di s abi l i tyw or ked and [ he] br oughtt o herat t ent i on t hat[he] w as i nt er es t ed i n a di s pat ch j ob” w i th the S h e ri ff. Id. a t 5 8 . B u t “[ h e ] n e v e r sa id a n yth in g a b o u t n o t w a n tin g to g o b a c k to t he j ai l . ” Id. I ns t ead, he as ked N unez t o “s end [hi m ] advert i s ement s . . . forany-3-

j ob openi ngs w i t hi n t he countyt hat[he] w as qual i fi ed for . ” Id. A ft erw ar d, M r. B u n d yv isi ted th e D eten ti o n C en ter, w h ere h e told sev era l of h is co -w o rke rs t hat“[he ] had no i dea” “w hen [he ] w as comi ng back t o w or k, ” and “ that[i t ] w as up t o [D r . H ens al ] . ” Id. at59. M r . B undym etw i t h D r . H ens al fortr eatm enton O ct ober28, 2003, N ovember13, 2003, and J anuary21, 2004. D r . H ens al t ol d M r . B undythathe

“ h a d so m e c o n c e rn s a b o u t a o n e -a rm e d p riso n g u a rd ” a n d “ a b o u t h is a b ili tyto r etur n t o t hatki nd of w or k. ” Id. at76. B utD r . H ens al al s o t ol d M r . B undythat “i f the pr i s on w oul d al l ow hi m t o go t o w or k underthos e ci r cumst ance s , [he] w oul dn’ ts t and i n hi s w ay . ” Id. at77. D r . H ens al t es t i fi ed dur i ng hi s depos i t i on that h e c o u ld n o t r ec all M r. B u n d yev er req u esti n g a re lease to return to w o rk o r a s ta te m e n t o f

p h y s ic a l lim ita tio n s th a t c o u ld b e p ro v id e d to th e C o u n ty. A d d iti o n a lly , D r. H e n sa l co u ld n o t re c a ll M r. B u n d ye v e r in d ica tin g a n in ter e st in w o rkin g as a d ispa tche r. O n Ja n u a ry1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , N u n e z n o tifie d M r. B u n d yth a t h e w a s a b o u t to e x h a u st h is F M L A lea v e a n d th a t h e n e e d e d to su b m it “a p ro g n o sis fo r re tu rn to w or k fr om [hi s ] phy s i ci an . . . s o thatw e mayeval uat e thi s s i tuat i on fur ther . ” Id. at83. M r . B undyr es ponded, t el l i ng N unez a boutan upcomi ng doct or app ointm ent on Janu ary21 and t hat “w hen [he] go tback from [his ] doct or. . . [he] w oul d l etherknow w hat[he] neede d. ” Id. at61. B utM r . B undy d id n o t p ro v id e N u n e z w ith th e in fo rm a tio n . In d e e d , h e late r te stified th a t h e d id-4-

notas k D r . H ens al fora r etur n- t o- w or k r el eas e bec aus e he be l i eved that D r. H e n s a l w o u ld n o t r e le a s e h im to w o rk in th e D e te n tio n C e n te r. Id. at136. O n J anuary23, t he C ount yM anage r , St ant on R i ggs , not i fi ed M r . B undy t hat a pr e-t erm i nati on heari ng had been schedu l ed fo r J anu ary28 becau se he had e xhaus t ed hi s FM L A l eave and had pr ovi ded nei ther“a medi cal r e l e a s e . . . a l l o wi n g [ h i m] t o r e tu rn t o wo r k ” a tth e De t e n t i o n Ce n t e rn o r“ a t i me t abl e as t o w hen [he w oul d] be abl e t o r eturn t o r egul arduty . ” Id. at84. R i ggs al s o i nform ed M r . B undyt hatatthe hea r i ng, he w oul d “be a l l ow ed t o pr es entany document at i on fr om [hi s ] doct orr egar di ng [hi s ] r etur n t o w or k. ” Id. A t th e p re-term ination h ea ri n g , M r. B u n d yo ffere d n o thing fro m h is do ctor, and i ns t ead r ei t er at ed hi s i nt er es ti n a di s pat cherpos i t i on. R i ggs r es ponded that o n lyth e S h e riff

c o u ld h ire a d isp a tch e r, an d th a t “n o m a tter w h a t, y o u h a v e g o t to have a r etur n- t o- w or k r el eas e fr om y ourdoct or . ” Id. a t 8 6 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). R i ggs t erm i nat ed B undyon February2, 2004, ci t i ng hi s exhaus t i on of l eave and hi s l ack of

a r el eas e t o r etur n t o w or k. In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 5 , af

ter re c e iv in g f

ro m th e E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ity C om m i s s i on a det erm i nat i on t hathe w as deni ed a r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on, M r . B undys ued the C ount yB oar d of C om m i s s i oner s i n fede r al court . T he co m p lai n t sou g h t r eli ef u n d er the A m erican s w ith D isab il it ies A ct (A D A ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 1 -1 2 2 1 3 , the N e w M e x ico H u m a n R ig h ts A c t, N .M . S tat. § 28- 1- 7, and N ew M exi co t or tand contr actl aw . T he di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed theW hi l e a boa r d of countycomm i s s i oner s m ays ett he s al ar i es of the 2 e m p lo y e e s a n d d e p u ties n e c e ss a ryto d isc h a rg e th e f u n c tio n s o f

th e c o u n ty , o n ly el ect ed countyoffi ci al s , i ncl udi ng s her i ffs , have the author i tyt o hi r e per s ons n e c e s s a ry to c a rr yo u t th e o ffic ia ls ’ d u tie s . See N .M . S ta t. § 4 -3 8 -1 9 (A ); N .M . C o n st. art. X , § § 2 (A ) & (B ). -5- B oar d s um m aryj udgm ent . R egar di ng the A D A cl ai m , the di s tr i ctcour trul ed that a c c o m m o d a tin g M r. B u n d y ’s d isa b ili tyb ym a k in g h im a d isp a tch e r a m o u n ted to an unr eas onabl e ac comm odat i on:

C om bi ned w i t h [M r . B undy ’ s ] fai l ur e t o pr ovi de medi cal document at i on ora t i m et abl e forr etur ni ng t o w or k, hi s r eques tt o be r eas s i gned t o a [di s pat cher ] pos i t i on underthe hi r i ng author i tyof the C ount ySher i ff pl ace d [the B oar d] i n an unt enabl e di l emm a r ather t han offer i ng an ave nue forr eas onabl e ac comm odat i on. O n the one hand, [the B oar d] coul d nots end [M r . B undy ] back t o hi s j ob as an A dul tD et ent i on O ffi cerbeca us e [he ] . . . neverpr ovi ded the medi cal document at i on nece s s aryt o det erm i ne w hetherhe coul d per form that jo b (o r w h e th e r it w a s p o ss ib le to re stru c tu re th a t jo b so a s to acc om m odat e [M r . B undy ’ s ] di s abi l i ty ) . O n the otherhand, [the B oar d] coul d notr eas s i gn [M r . B undy ] t o the pos i t i on of di s pat cher beca us e, even a s s um i ng [he] w oul d be qual i fi ed t o per form thatj ob ( w i t h orw i t houtr eas onabl e ac comm odat i on) , [the B oar d] coul d not o v e rr id e th e s ta tu to ry h ir in g a u th o ri ty o f th e C o u n ty S h e ri ff

. . . . [ 2] A p lt. A p p . at 2 3 5 . A s fo r M r. B u n d y ’s s tate -la w c laim s, th e d istric t co u rt sim p ly d e c lin e d to e x e rc ise su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n g iv e n th e lo ss o f th e A D A c laim to su m m a ryju d g m e n t. O n appea l , M r . B undyar gues t hat( 1) t he r equi r ementt hathe pr ovi de a re tu rn -to -w o rk re lea se w a s u n re a listic, u n n e c e ss a ry , an d in b a d fa ith ; (2 ) h is re q u e sts fo r a c c o m m o d a tio n w e re ig n o re d ; (3 ) th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t h is abs ence fr om w or k w as i ndefi ni t e; ( 4) he “w as undi s put abl yqual i fi ed fort he-6-

di s pat cherpos i t i on, and . . . pos i t i ons w er e ava i l abl e, ” A pl t . B r . at28; and ( 5) he coul d have be en tr ans ferr ed i nt o a di s pat cherpos i t i on beca us e i tw oul d nothave i nfri ng ed o n the Sh eri ff’s cr i m e-fi gh t i ng du t i es. D I SC US SI ON I . Sum m aryJ udgm entSt andar ds W e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . St overv. Mar t i nez , 3 8 2 F .3 d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 7 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e i f “the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h the affi davi t s , i f any , s how t hatt her e i s no g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . I n appl y i ng thi s s t andar d, w e view t he ev i den ce and draw al l reas on able i nferences i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e p a rt yo p p o s in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See Stover , 382 F. 3d at1070. I I . D i s abi l i tyD i s cr i m i nat i on T h e A D A re q u ire s a n e m p lo y e r “ to p ro v id e re a so n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n s to t he know n phy s i cal orm ent al l i m i t at i ons of an otherw i s e qual i fi ed” e m pl oy ee w ith a d is a b ility. B rist ol v. B d. of C ou nty C om m ’rs , 312 F. 3d 1213, 1217 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T o s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm enti n a fai l ur e- t o- acc om m odat e ca s e i nvol vi ng a r eques tforr eas s i gnm ent , t he empl oy ee m us tfi r s tes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e bys how i ng that( 1) he “i s a di s abl ed per s on w i t hi n t he meani ng of the A D A and has m ade a nyr es ul t i ng l i m i t at i ons fr om-7-

hi s . . . di s abi l i t yknow n t o t he empl oy er ”; ( 2) “[t ] he pr efe rr ed opt i on of acc om m odat i on w i t hi n t he empl oy ee’ s exi s t i ng j ob cannotr eas onabl ybe a c c o m p lish e d ” ; (3 ) h e “ re q u e ste d th e e m p lo y e r re a so n a b lyto a c c o m m o d a te h is

. . . di s abi l i t ybyr eas s i gnm entt o a vac antpos i t i on”; ( 4) he w as qual i fi ed, w i th or w i t houtr eas onabl e ac comm odat i on, t o per form the es s ent i al funct i ons of the d e s ir e d jo b ; a n d (5 ) t h e e m p lo y e r d id n o t o ffe r r e a s s ig n m e n t. Sm i th v. Mi dl and B r ake, Inc. , 1 8 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 7 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). If th e e m p lo y e e m e e ts th is b u rd e n , the e m p lo y e r m u st th e n “ p re se n t ev id e n c e e ith e r (1 ) c o n c lu siv e ly r ebut t i ng one orm or e el ement s of [the] pr i m a fa ci e ca s e or( 2) es t abl i s hi ng an aff i r m at i ve defens e. ” Id. Fi nal l y , “i f the empl oy erdoes ei therof the above , s um m aryj udgm entw i l l be appr opr i at e forthe empl oy erunl es s the empl oy ee then pr es ent s evi dence es t abl i s hi ng a genui ne di s put e r egar di ng the affi r m at i ve defe ns es and/ orr ehabi l i t at i ng anychal l enged e l ement s of [the] pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. ” Id. W e c o n c lu d e th a t M r. B u n d y , b yfa ili n g to re sp o n d to th e re p e a ted re q u e sts fordocument at i on conce r ni ng hi s abi l i tyt o r eturn t o w or k, nevertr i gger ed the B oar d’ s dut yt o cons i derr eas s i gnm ent . R eas s i gnm enti s an opt i on t o be co n side red o n lyaf

ter othe r effo rt s at ac co m m o d ati o n w ith in the em p loy ee ’s e x is tin g jo b h a v e fa ile d . Id. a t 1 1 7 0 -7 1 ; s ee als o D avol lv. Webb , 194 F. 3d 1116, 1 1 3 2 n .8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (“ In g e n e ra l, an e m p lo y e e re q u irin g a re a so n a b le acc om m odat i on w i l l need t o i ni t i at e the i nt er act i ve pr oces s bynot i fy i ng theT o th e e x ten t th a t th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t N u n e z ’s a n d R ig g s’ r e q u e sts 3 fo rw o r k r e l e a s e s c o n c e r n e d M r . B u n d y’ s a b i l i ty t o r e s u m e w o r k i n a n y c a p a c i t y, r athert han j us thi s abi l i t yt o r eturn t o the D et ent i on C ent er , w e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctcourtm i s cons t rued the evi dence . T he t ot al i tyof the evi dence i s not defi ni t i ve one w ayort he other . N everthel es s , t her e i s no di s put e thatM r . B undy fai l ed t o pr ovi de anyi nform at i on aboutw hen he c oul d r es um e anys or tof w or k or w hatt he l i m i t at i ons fr om hi s di s abi l i tyw er e. W i thouts uch i nform at i on, t he B oar d coul d notdet erm i ne w hethera r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on coul d be made at the D eten ti o n C en ter. -8- empl oy erof hi s di s abi l i t yand r es ul t i ng l i m i t at i ons , and r eques t i ng r eas s i gnm ent if n o re a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n is p o s s ib le in th e e m p lo y e e ’s e x itin g jo b .” ). M or eover , M r . B undy ’ s r eques t ed ac comm odat i on of r eas s i gnm entt o a di s pat cher p o s i t i o n w a s n o tr e a s o n a b l e , g i v e n th a ti tw a s n o tw i th i n th e B o a r d ’ s a u th o r i ty. A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons gi ven bythe d istric t co u rt in g ra n tin g th e B o a rd su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 3 E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge