FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 7, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15417 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 8 1 7 - CV - T- 2 4 - M SS K A R E N C A R L S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s L I B E R T Y M U T U A L I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 7, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K ar en C ar l son app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entt o h erCarlson, a female who suff ers f rom epilepsy, filed a c omplaint in Florida state c ourt 1 alleg ing shewas disabled a nd that Liberty

Mutual failed to makea re asonableacc ommodation for her disability

by ref using her re quest to work from home in her position as a re g ional medical direc tor (RMD) while shewas under a driving ba n as a result of her

epilepsy . Liberty

Mutual subsequently

had the c ase removed to the United States D istrict Court for the Middle District of Fl o ri d a o nth e b as i s o f d i v er s i ty j uri s di ct i o n . C arl s o nth enfi l edanam en d edco mp l ai ntad din g a claim for g ender

discrimination under the F CRA alleg ing that gender w as a f actor in her termination. 2 e m p lo y e r , L ib e rty M u tu a l I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y , in h e rla w s u it a lle g in g d is ab ility and g ender di sc ri m i nat i on fi l ed pu rs uantt o the F l ori da C i vi l R i gh t s A ct(F C R A ), F la . S ta t. § 7 6 0 .0 1 - 7 6 0 .1 1 . W e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. 1 I . ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t de no vo . L i pp er t v. Cm t y. B an k, Inc. , 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p r o p e rw h e n th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to an y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d th e m o v in g p a rty is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w . I d. I I . DI S C US S I ON I n adi s c r i m i na t i on c a s e , the c om pl a i na ntc a rr i e s the i ni t i a l bur de n of es t abl i shi ng a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e o f d is c r im in a tio n . McD on nel l D ou glas C orp. v. G re en , 9 3 S . C t. 1 8 1 7 , 1 8 2 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . T h e b u r d e n th e n s h if ts to th e e m p lo y e rto o f f e ra“le g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n ” f o rits d e c is io n . I

d. I f i tdoe s s o, the bu rden shi ft s bac k t o the com pl ai nantt o sho w the em pl oyer ’ s proff er ed re as on w as3

p r e te x tu a l. I

d. at18 25 . T he bu rden-s hi ft i ng anal ys i s a l so appl i es t o cl ai m s und er th e A D A . Wa s c u r a v . C i t y o f S. Mi a mi , 25 7 F . 3d 12 38 , 12 42 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A . D is abi l i t

y dis c r i m i nat i on A di sabi l i ty di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m brou gh tun der the F C R A i s anal yz ed un der th e s a m e f

r a m e w o rka s A D A c la im s . D ’A ng elo v. C on A gra Foo ds, Inc. , 422 F . 3d 12 20 , 12 24 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T o est abl i sh a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on un der the A D A , a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow (1) s he has adi sabi l i ty, (2) s he i s aqu al i fi ed i ndi vi dua l , a nd ( 3) the de f e nda ntunl a w f

ul l y di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns the rbe c aus e of th e d is ab ility . I

d. a t 1 2 2 6 . 1 . W h e th e rC a r ls o n h a s a d is a b ility U nde rthe A D A , ape r s on ha s adi s abi l i ty i f s he ha s “ ( A ) aphy s i c a l or m ent al i m pai rm entthatsubst ant i al l y l i m i t s one or m ore of the m aj or l i fe ac t i vi t i es ( M L A s ) of

s uc h i ndi vi dua l ; ( B ) ar e c or d of s uc h i m pa i rm e nt ; or( C ) [ be e n] re garded as havi ng such an i m pai rm ent . ” 42 U . S . C . § 1 21 02 (2). M L A s are

“ f unc t i ons s uc h a s c a r i ng f orone s e l f

, pe r f orm i ng m a nua l t a s ks , w a l ki ng, s e e i ng, h e a r in g , s p e a k in g , b r e a th in g , le a rn in g , a n d w o rk in g .” 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 3 0 .2 ( i) . D ri vi ng i s nota m aj or l i fe ac t i vi ty and the i nabi l i ty t o d ri ve do es no t , by i t se l f, subst ant i al l y l i m i ton e’ s abi l i ty t o w ork w here she has prod uced no evi dence that4

s h e w a s u n ab le to p e r f

o rm h e rjo b . Ch e n o w e th v . Hills b o r o u g h C o u n ty , 250 F . 3d 1328, 1330 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . W i th r e s pe c tt o w orki ng: s u b s ta n tia lly lim its m e a n s s ig n if ic a n tly r e s tr ic te d in th e ab ility to pe r f orm e i the rac l a s s of

j obs orabr oa d r a nge of j obs i n va r i ous c la s s e s a s c o m p a r e d to th e a v e r a g e p e r s o n h a v in g c o m p a r ab le tra i ni ng , ski l l s, and abi l i t i es . T he i nabi l i ty t o p er form a s i ng l e, pa rt i c ul a rj ob doe s notc ons t i tut e as ubs t a nt i a l l i m i t a t i on i n the m a j or l i f e a c t i vi ty of

w orki ng. 29 C . F . R . § 1 63 0. 2(j )( 3)(i ). C ar l son t es t i fi ed on l y thatshe w as un abl e t o d ri ve for s i x m on ths af t erher se i zure . S he spec i fi ca l l y t es t i fi ed thatas l on g as s he t oo k h erm edi ca t i on , her ab ility to w o rkw a s n o t lim ite d . See Sut ton v. U ni ted A i r L i nes, Inc. , 1 1 9 S . C t. 2146 ( 1999) ( s t a t i ng a ny m e a s ur e s ape r s on t a ke s t o c orr e c tf ora n i m pa i rm e nt m u s t b e ta k e n in to a c c o u n t w h e n ju d g in g w h e th e rth a t p e r s o n is s u b s ta n tia lly l i m i t e d i n a n ML A) . C ar l son al so st at ed she i ni t i al l y r equest ed L i berty M utual pay f orhe rt o t a ke at a xi t o the of f i c e , f ur the rc onf

i rm i ng he rabi l i ty t o w ork w a s not l i m i t e d by a ny thi ng othe rtha n he ri nabi l i ty t o dr i ve . F ur the rm or e , a l though s he cont ends she i s unabl e t o p er form ce rt ai n j ob s, she has no tpres ent ed any e vi dence she i s pre vent ed fr om perf orm i ng a “ cl as s of j ob s” or a “ broad range of j ob s. ” C ar l son st at ed i n h eraf

fi davi tthatshe w as un abl e t o d o anythi ng du ri ng her se i zure s, w hi ch l as ton e t o three m i nu t es . T he se i zure s, ho w ever , ar e of s ho rt d u r a tio n , a n d C a r ls o n h a s e x p e r ie n c e d “v e ry f e w ” o f th e m in h e rlif

e tim e .Although Ca rlson presented the argument she wa s reg arde d as havinga disability , the 2 district court dec lined to consider that issue ba sed on its other finding s. Sim ilarly, beca use we concludeCarlson was not a qualified individual beca use she wa s unable to perform an e ssential j o b f un c ti o n , w eal s o d e c l in et o c o n s i d er wh e th er C arl s o nw a s re g a

rd e d a s h av in ga

di s a b i l i ty. 5 M o reo v er, C arl so n p resen t s n o arg u m en to r ev i d en ce as t o h o w h er m em o ry l o ss and d i ff i cul ty c om m un i cat i ng subst ant i al l y l i m i tany of herM L A s. F i nal l y, D r. R a m s e y te s tif

ie d th a t, a f

te rh e rs e iz u r e s , C a r ls o n w a s r e s tr ic te d f r o m c e rta in a c tiv itie s s u c h a s b u n g e e ju m p in g , S C U B A d iv in g , p ilo tin g ap la n e , w o rk in g in el evat ed pl ac es , or sw i m m i ng al on e. T hese ac t i vi t i es , ho w everar e not“ m aj or” a c tiv itie s c o m p a r ab le to w a lk in g , s p e a k in g , b r e a th in g , a n d le a rn in g . See 2 9 C. F. R. § 1 6 3 0 .2 ( i) . C a r ls o n d id n o t s u b m it a n y e v id e n c e f r o m w h ic h ar e a s o n ab le f a c t f i nde rc oul d c onc l ude s he w a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y i m pa i r e d i n he rabi l i ty t o w ork or pe r f orm a ny othe rM L A S , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n c onc l udi ng C a r l s on d i d n o tm eetth e d efi n i t i o n o f h av i n g an actu al d i sab i l i ty. 2 2 . W he the rC ar l

s on w as a qual i

f i e d i ndi v i dual A q u a lif ie d in d iv id u a l is o n e w h o , “w ith o rw ith o u t r e a s o n ab le a c c o mmo d a t i o n , c a n p e r f o rm th e e s s e n t i a l f

u n c t i o n s o f

s u c h p o s i t i o n . ” 2 9 C. F. R. § 1630. 2( m ) . “ D e t e rm i ni ng w he the rapa rt i c ul a rj ob duty i s a n e s s e nt i a l f unc t i on i nv ol ves afa ctual i nq ui ryt o b e c on du ct ed on a c as e- by-c as e bas i s. ” L u c a s v . W. W. G rai ng er , Inc. , 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . I n c e rta in s itu a tio n s , d a ily att endance m aybe an es se nt i al funct i on of a posi t i on , ho w ever , i ti s notal w ay s an6

e s s e n tia l f

u n c tio n . Se e J

ac k s on v . V e te r ans A dm i n. , 22 F . 3d 27 7, 27 9 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). T he r e w a s e vi de nc e L i be rty M utua l r e ga r de d da i l y a tt e nda nc e a tthe T a m pa o f f ic e a s a n e s s e n tia l jo b f

u n c tio n b e c au s e th e p o s itio n r e q u ir e d in te r a c tio n w ith nu rs e c as e m anagers and cl ai m s a dj ust er s. D r. D avi d D i et z, C ar l son’ s s up ervi sor, t es t i fi ed thatpri or t o h i ri ng C ar l son, he “ re cr ea t ed” the R M D rol e t o requi re : [ be i ng] i nt i m a t e l y i nvol ve d i n c l a i m s ope r a t i ons , de ve l op[ i ng] w orki ng r e l a t i ons hi ps w i th nur s e s a nd c l a i m s a dj us t e r s , [ ha vi ng] a s s ig n e do f

f ic e s th a t th e y w e r e e x p e c te d to p r o v id e c lin ic a l in p u t to a nd a s s um [ i ng] r ol e s tha tw e r e m or e e xpa ns i ve i n t e rm s of tr a i ni ng, de ve l opm e nta nd m e di c a l pol i c y , i nvol ve m e nti n s a l e s a nd m a rke t i ng o ccasi o n al l y an d so m e o th er th i n g s. A l so, D i et z t es t i fi ed he fel ti tw as i m po rt antfor the R M D s t o b e per ce i ved as t ea m m e m be r s , a nd a c c e s s i bi l i ty w a s i m port a ntf ortha tpe r c e pt i on. F u rth e rm o r e , C a r ls o n te s tif ie d p a rt o f

h e rd u tie s in v o lv e d b e in g a v a ilab le to th e n u r s e c la im s m a n a g e r s a n d c la im s a d ju s te r s . S h e p a rtic ip a te d in w e e k ly m eet i n g s an d h el d w eek l y o ffi ce h o u rs. A l th o u g h sh e d i d n o tth i n k4 0 h o u rs a w ee k i n the T am pa offi ce w as nece ss ary, C ar l son ackno w l edged that , as a l ea der, she nee ded t o i nt er ac tw i th the nu rs es and adj ust er s. F i nal l y, w i th regard t o o thers e m pl oy e d i n s i m i l a rpos i t i ons , C a r l s on’ s r e pl a c e m e ntt e s t i f i e d he s pe nt ap p ro x i m at el y 2 5 t o 3 0 % o f h i s t i m e face-to-face w i th ad j u st ers an d n u rses.7

A l though the w r i tt e n j ob de s c r i pt i on di d notc ont a i n as pe c i f i c num be rof h o u r s , it s u p p o rts th a t C a r ls o n w a s e x p e c te d to b e in th e o f f ic e a s p a rt o f

h e rjo b . F ore xa m pl e , i ts pe c i f

i c a l l y s t a t e d C a r l s on w a s t o pr ovi de “ on- s i t e ” s upport . A l s o, i ti nc l ude d j ob dut i e s , s uc h a s c ons ul t a t i on, a dvi s i ng nur s e s , a nd pr ovi di ng tr a i ni ng, w hi c h w oul d ge ne r a l l y be pe r f orm e d f r om a n of

f i c e . F ur the rm or e , the j ob de s c r i pt i on r a t e d “ good abi l i ty t o w ork i n at e a m / or ga ni z a t i on” a nd pos i t i ve r e c om m e nda t i ons r e ga r di ng i nt e r a c t i on w i th othe r s a s hi ghl y i m port a nt q u a lif ic a tio n s f o rth e jo b , w h ic h s u g g e s ts b e in g a r o u n d o th e r s w a s e s s e n tia l. O n the other hand, al tho ug h D i et z e xp re ss ed he had a prefe re nce that C a r l s on’ s r e pl a c e m e ntw ork f r om the T a m paof

f i c e , D i e t z t e s t i f

i e d w orki ng f

r om the J a c ks onvi l l e of

f i c e w a s a n opt i on. F ur the rm or e , C a r l s on t e s t i f i e d w hi l e s he w a s e m p lo y e d a s a n R M D , 9 5 % o f h e rjo b w a s p e r f

o rm e d b y p h o n e o rin te rn e t. A f t e rhe rs e i z ur e , C a r l s on pe r f orm e d s om e of

he rj ob dut i e s f

r om hom e f

or ap p ro x i m at el y tw o an d a h al f m o n th s, ap p aren t l y w i th o u ta ch an g e i n h er case l o ad . A l so , C arl so n ’ s rep l acem en tt est i fi ed sh e d i d n o tl eav e b eh i n d “ m esses” as a re sul tof w orki ng fr om ho m e. A l tho ug h there m aybe a genui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether Ca r l s o n ’ s f

u l l - t i me p r e s e n c e w a s e s s e n t i a l , th e e v i d e n c e e s t ab l i s h e s th a ts o me pres ence i n the offi ce w as an es se nt i al funct i on of the po si t i on . C ar l son, ho w ever ,8

re qu es t ed t o w ork from ho m e f ul l t i m e. T he evi dence es t abl i shes C ar l son w as un abl e t o p er form the es se nt i al j ob funct i on of atl ea stsom e pre se nce i n the offi ce . C ar l son fai l s t o est abl i sh a p r im a fa c ie ca se because s he do es no thave an a c tua l di s abi l i ty a s de f

i ne d by the A D A , a nd e ve n i f s he w a s r e ga r de d a s di s abl e d, s he c a nnots how s he w a s qua l i f i e d. T hus , w e a f

f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof sum m ary j ud gm enton thi s i ss ue. B . G e nde rdis c r i m i nat i on G e n d e rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms u n d e rth e FCRA a r e a n a l y z e d u n d e rth e s a me s ta n d a r d s a s c la im s u n d e rT itle V I I . H ar pe rv . B loc kbus te rE ntm ’ t C or p. , 139 F . 3d 13 85 , 13 87 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). In the abse nce of di re ctevi dence, a pl ai nt i ff es t abl i shes a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on by s how i ng: ( 1) s he be l ongs t o a prot ec t ed cl as s; (2) s he w as subj ec t ed t o an adv er se em pl oym entac t i on ; (3) her em pl oyertre at ed si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed em pl oyee s out si de her cl as si fi ca t i on m ore f a v o r ab ly ; a n d ( 4 ) s h e w a s q u a lif ie d to d o th e jo b . See H ol i f i e ld v . R e no , 115 F . 3d 15 55 , 15 62 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). If the pl ai nt i ff

es t abl i shes a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e , the e m p lo y e rm u s t o f

f e rale g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n f o rits d e c is io n . W i l s on v. B / EA er ospa ce, Inc. , 376 F . 3d 1079, 1089- 90 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . T he p la in tif f m u s t th e n e s tab lis h th e p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n is p r e te x tu a l. I d. at10 90 . In e s t abl i s hi ng pr e t e xt , apl a i nt i f f m us ts how the r e a s on w a s f a l s e a nd di s c r i m i na t i on9

w a s th e tru e r e a s o n . B r o o k s v . C o u n ty C o m m ’ n o

f J e ffe rs o n C o u n ty , 446 F . 3d 11 60 , 11 63 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). “ If the proffer ed re as on i s one thatm i gh tm ot i vat e a r e a s onabl e e m pl oy e r , apl a i nt i f f c a nnotr e c a s tthe r e a s on butm us tm e e ti the a d on and rebuti t . ” W

i l s on , 3 7 6 F .3 d a t 1 0 8 8 . E ven i f C ar l son h ad es t abl i shed a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e , s h e h a s n o to v e r c o me L i berty M utual ’ s l egi t i m at e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory r ea son for her t erm i nat i on , her r e f us a l t o c om e i nt o the T a m paof f i c e . A l though C a r l s on i ntr oduc e d e vi de nc e s he coul d p er form som e of herdu t i es fr om ho m e, there w as al so evi dence her pre se nce i n the T am pa offi ce w as needed. T here fore , no ne of C ar l son’ s e vi dence es t abl i shes L ib e ry M u tu a l’s p r o f

f e r e d r e a s o n f

o rf ir in g h e rw a s f

a ls e . F urthe rm or e , vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o C a r l s on, D i e t z ’ s que s t i on aboutw he the rs he c oul d w ork w i th f e m a l e nur s e s a nd hi s f

a i l ur e t o i nt e rvi e w or h ir e af e m a le r e p la c e m e n t d o n o t e s tab lis h h e f ir e d C a r ls o n b e c au s e o f h e rg e n d e r . S i m i l a r l y , C a r l s on pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e tha tD i e t z ’ s be i ng “ c hum m y ” w i th the m al e R M D s and her f

ee l i ng l i ke she di d n otre ce i ve ce rt ai n i nform at i on w er e because s he w as fe m al e. A l tho ug h D i et z m ayhave as ked a gend er -r el at ed qu es t i on , there i s no evi dence he m ade c om m ent s di spl ay i ng di sc ri m i nat ory ani m us agai nstw om en. N on e of C ar l son’ s e vi dence es t abl i shes the proffer ed re as on w as fa l se , or the re al re as on w as her gender. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt10

di d n oterr i n g rant i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o L i berty M utual on C ar l son’ s gender d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. A FFI R M ED .