# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 14 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

All en Brad le y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Lit tl e Ro ck W as te wate r Uti li ty; Dale Gil be rt, i n h is in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al

cap aci ty as a Su pe rv is or of Li tt le Ro ck W as te wate r Uti li ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

16 , 20 13
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 14 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

All en Brad le y cl ai m s t h a t t he Lit tl e Ro ck W as te wate r Uti li ty (“ LRW ”), hi s

fo rm er em

pl oyer, and Dale Gil be rt, h is for m er sup erv is or , in te rfer ed wit h hi s rig ht s

u n de r th e Fam il y an d Med ic al Leav e Act (“ FMLA”)

. He al so cl ai m s th at LR W

te rm in at ed hi s em

pl oym en t in vi ol at io n of th e Am eri c a n s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act(“ ADA”). The di st ric t co ur t en te red su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Gil be rt an d 1

LRW , and Brad le y

ap pe al s.

Brad le y was em

pl oyed by LRW

, th e m

un ic ip al ly own ed se wer ut il it y fo r Lit tl e

R o c k, Ark an sa s, fro m 19 94 un ti l Ju ly 20 09

. As an LRW em pl oyee, Brad l e y h a d a

hi st or y of po or pe rfo rm an ce, co ns is te nt ly ran ki ng be lo w hi s pe ers i n a n n u al

ev al ua ti on s. LRW rates it s emplo y ees in ten di ffer en t p erfo rm an ce ca te go rie s ea ch

y ear. Out of 40 po ss ib le p o i nt s, Brad le y earn ed sc or es of 23 an d 25 in 20 07 an d

20 08

, r e s p ect iv el y

. Co m pa rat iv el y , th e th ree ot he r te ch ni ci an s on Brad le y ’s te am

earn ed sco res be twee n 3 2 a nd 36

.

Bet ween Apr il 14 an d May 25

, 20 09

, Brad le y arri ve d la te fo r wor k th ree ti m es ,

an d he al so m is se d two fu ll da y s. On May 26

, he ag ai n was ab se nt fro m wor k an d di d

no t co nt act LRW wit h an ex pl an at io n, in vi ol at io n of LRW ’s cal l-i n po li cy

. Tha t da y , Gil be rt is su ed Brad le y a writ te n warn in g an d pl aced hi m on pr ob at io n fo r si x m on th s

fo r fai li ng to co m

pl y wit h LRW’ s at te nd an ce p ol ic ie s.

Gil be rt is su ed Brad le y a se c o n d w r i t te n warn in g on Ju ly 17

, 20 09

, whi ch

id en ti fie d se ve ral o th er pe rfo rm an ce-r el at ed de fic ie nc ie s. In th is warn in g, Gil be rt

ci te d Brad le y fo r fai li ng to co m pl et e as si gn ed wor k in a ti m el y m an ne r, fai li ng to

co m pl et e pa pe rwo rk as in st ru ct ed

, fai li ng to pe rfo rm de pa rtment wor k in an

or ga ni zed m an ne r, an d in ab il it y to pe rfo rm th e ta sk s req ui red by hi s po si ti on

. Gil be rt

al so ci te d Brad le y fo r fai li ng to wear safe ty sh oe s in ha zard ou s areas as req ui red by

LRW ’s saf

et y po li ci es

.

On Ju ly 22

, 20 09

, LRW te rm in at ed Bra dle y ’s em pl oym en t fo r in su bo rd in at io n.
Brad le y ha d su st ai ne d an in jury at ho m e in Nov em

be r 20 08

, an d he ha d be en on li gh t

The Hon or ab le D. P. Mar sh al l, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-du ty si nc e Feb ru ary 20 09

. W he n Gil b e r t ob se rv ed Brad le y pe rfo rm in g se ve ral

res tri ct ed ta sk s, he as ke d Brad le y to pr od uc e a do ct or ’s no te rel eas in g hi m to fu ll du ty by Ju ly 21

. Brad le y fai le d to pr od uc e a no te

, an d Gil be rt arra ng ed a m eet in g th e ne xt

da y to in fo rm Brad le y th at he was be in g pl aced on ad m in is tra ti ve le av e. Befo re the

m eet in g en de d, ho wev er, Brad le y be cam e be ll ig eren t an d, de sp it e in st ru ct io ns to th e

co nt rary, refu se d to le av e th e faci li ty. Gil be rt th en to ld Brad le y th at he wou ld cal l th e

po li ce if Brad le y di d no t le av e im m ed ia te ly. Wh en Gil be rt di d cal l th e po li ce,
Brad le y fin al ly left . LRW

ter m in at ed Brad le y ’s em pl oym en t t he ne xt da y

.

Brad le y fil ed su it ag ai ns t LRW an d Gil be rt, cl ai m in g th at LRW in te rfer ed wit h

hi s FMLA rig ht s an d fai le d to acco m m od at e hi s di ab et es in vi ol at io n of Tit le II of th e

ADA. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d LRW ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, fin di ng th at 2
(1 ) Bra dl ey ’s F MLA cl ai m fai le d be cau se he ne ve r ga ve no ti ce o f hi s i nt en t t o t ak e

FMLA le av e, an d (2 ) Bra d l e y’s ADA cl ai m fai le d be cau se he was no t a “ qu al ifi ed

in di vi du al .”

“ W e rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t’s g r a n t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo .” Bac on

v. Hen ne pi n Cn ty

. Med

. Ct r. , 55 0 F.3 d 7 1 1

, 71 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). “ Viewi ng th e

e v i d e n c e an d dr awin g al l in fere nc es in fav or of th e no n- m ov in g pa rty, su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te if th ere is no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g

pa rty is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Id

. “Th i s c o u r t m ay affi rm th e

su m m ary jud gm en t de ci si on on an y ba si s su pp or te d b y t h e r eco rd .” Hea cker v.

Sa fe co Ins . Co. o

f Am. , 67 6 F .3d 72 4, 7 27 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

Brad le y fir st ap pe a l s t he ad ve rs e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on hi s FMLA

cl ai m

. The FMLA al lo ws an em pl oyee t o ta ke twel ve week s of le av e du rin g an y

Brad le y al so br ou gh t cl ai m s un de r th e Age Dis cri m in at io n in E m plo y m en t Act 2

of 19 67 an d 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. The di st ric t co ur t al so en te red su m m ary jud gm en t in
fav or of LRW wit h res pe ct to th es e cl ai m s, an d Brad le y do es no t ap pe al th is de ci si on

.

-3

-twel ve -m on th pe rio d “ [b ]ecaus e of a se rio us he al th co nd it io n th at m ak es th e

em pl oyee un ab le to pe rfo rm th e fu nc ti on s of th e po si ti on of s u c h e mp l o y ee.” 29

U.S.C. § 26 12 (a)( 1) (D). “ The FMLA reco gn iz es two types of cl ai m s by em pl oyees:

in te rfer en ce an d ret al ia ti on .” Bal la to v. Co mca st Co rp

. , 67 6 F.3 d 76 8, 77 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ); 29 U.S.C. § 26 15 (a) ( 1 ) ( “It sh al l be un la wfu l fo r an y em pl oyer to in te rfer e
wit h, res tra in , o r de ny t he ex erci se of or th e at te m pt to ex erci se , a ny ri gh t pr ov id ed
[b y th e FMLA].”). In hi s br ie f an d al so at or al arg um en t, Brad le y i n s i s t e d th at hi s
FMLA cl ai m

on ap pe al is ba se d s ol el y on an in te rfer en ce t he or y

.

To st at e a cl ai m fo r in te rfer en ce, th e em pl oyee m us t sh ow th at he ga ve no ti ce

of hi s ne ed fo r FMLA le av e. Phi ll ip s v. Mat he ws , 54 7 F.3 d 90 5, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

Afte r th e em

pl oyee es ta bl is he s th at he ga ve pr op er no ti ce, he be ars th e in it ia l bu rd en

of pr oo f to sh ow th at he was en ti tl ed to a de ni ed FMLA be ne fit

. Bal la to 67 6 F.3 d at

77 2. If th e pl ai nt iff m ak es a sh owi ng of in te rf e r e n c e , th e bu rd en th en sh ift s to th e

em pl oyer to es ta bl is h th at th ere was a reas on fo r te rm in at in g th e em pl oym en t th at was

un rel at ed to th e em

pl oyee e x e r c i s in g hi s FMLA rig ht s. Th ro ne be rr y v. McGeh ee

Des ha Cn ty

. Hos

p. , 40 3 F.3 d 97 2, 97 8- 79 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ As lo ng as an em pl oyer

can sh ow a la wfu l reas on , i.e., a reas on un rel at ed to an em pl oyee’s ex erci se of FMLA
rig ht s, fo r no t res to rin g an em pl oyee on FMLA le av e to he r po si ti on , th e em pl oyer
wil l b e jus ti fie d t o i nt erfe re wi th an em pl oyee’s FMLA le av e ri gh ts .” Id

. at 9 79

.

Alt ho ug h he do es no t cl ai m to ha ve be en se ek in g to ex erci se an y FMLA rig ht s

at th e ti m e, Bra d l e y a rg ue s th at LRW in te rfer ed wit h hi s FMLA rig ht s be cau se it

co ns id ered hi s di ab et es -rel at ed ab se nc es whe n it te rm in at ed hi s em pl o ym e n t

. Reg ard le ss of whe th er Br ad le y m eet s hi s in it ia l bu rd en of pr oo f, ho wev er, LRW

of fers a le gi ti m at e reas on fo r te rm in at io n th at is un rel at ed to Brad le y ex erci si ng an y

FMLA rig ht s. The reco rd refl ect s th at on May 26

, 20 09

, LR W pl aced Brad le y on

pr ob at io n fo r fai li ng to fo ll ow th e pr op er no ti ce pr oc ed ur es fo r an il ln es s- rel at ed

ab se nc e. On Ju ly 21

, 20 09

, Gil be rt de ci de d to pl ace Brad le y on ad m in is tra ti ve le av e

fo r fai li ng to ob se rv e hi s li gh t du ty res tri ct io ns wit ho ut pr od uc in g a do ct or ’s no te

-4

-rel eas in g hi m fro m li gh t du ty. Fi na ll y , Gil be rt em ai le d hi s su pe rv is or s to reco m m en d

th at Brad le y ’s em

pl oym en t be te rm in at ed ba se d on Brad le y ’s co nd uc t at th e Ju ly 22

m eet in g. Gil be rt wro te t h e J ul y 22 em ai l im m ed ia te ly aft er Brad le y be cam e
be ll ig eren t an d refu se d to le av e th e pr em is es whe n Gil be rt to ld hi m th at he was to be
pl aced on ad m in is tra ti ve lea ve

.

The reco rd su pp or ts LRW ’s as se rti on th at it te rm in at ed Brad le y ’s em pl oym en t

fo r in su bo rd in at io n, whi ch is a le gi ti m at e reas on un rel at ed to Brad le y ’s ex erci se of

an y FMLA rig ht s. Cf

. Put man v. Uni ty Hea lt h Sy s. , 34 8 F.3 d 73 2, 73 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 )
(n ot in g th at “ [o ]ur cas es ha ve rep eat ed ly h el d th at in su bo rd in at io n an d vi ol a ti on of

co m pa ny po li cy are le gi ti m at e reas on s fo r te rm in at io n” in th e em pl oym en t

di sc riminat io n co nt ex t). Brad le y pr es en ts no ev id en ce to creat e a m at eri al qu es ti on

of fact on th is is su e. The re is no th in g in th e reco rd to su gg es t th at LRW co ns id ered

Brad le y ’s ab se nc es whe n it te rm in at ed hi s em pl oym en t on Ju ly 22

, m

uc h le ss th at it

ev en be li ev ed th e ab se nc es we r e FMLA el ig ib le

. His FMLA in te rfer en ce cl ai m

th eref or e fai ls

. Se e Th ro ne be rr y , 40 3 F.3 d at 97 9 (8 th C i r

. 2 00 5) (“ [A] reas on fo r
di sm is sa l in su ffi ci en tl y rel at ed to FMLA le av e wil l no t su pp or t reco ve ry un de r an

in te rfer en ce th eo ry .” (q uo ti ng Smi th v. Dif fe e For d- Li nc ol n- Mer cu ry
, In c. , 29 8 F.3 d

95 5, 9 61 (10 th Cir . 20 02 )).

Brad le y al so ap pe al s th e ad ve rs e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on hi s fai lu re-t oacco m m od at e cla im

un de r Tit le II o f th e ADA. Titl e II p ro vi de s: 3 4

At or al arg um en t, Brad le y co nf irmed th at hi s ADA cl ai m is ba se d so le ly on 3

LRW ’s fai lu re to acco m

m o d a t e h i s di ab et es by ex cep ti ng hi m fro m it s m an da to ry

sa fet y sh oe po li cy

.

Pl ai nt iff s typic al ly br in g em

pl oym en t di sc riminat io n cas es un de r Tit le I of th e 4 ADA, whi ch ad dr es se s em pl oym en t. Brad le y cl ai m ed vi ol at io ns of bo th Tit le I an d
Tit le II, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at hi s Tit le I cl ai m fai le d be cau se Brad le y di d no t co m

pl y wit h th e EEOC ex ha us ti on req ui rem en ts

. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 7( a).
Brad le y do es no t ap pe al th e d en ia l o f hi s Ti tl e I cl ai m

.

-5

-[n ]o qu al ifi ed in di vi du al wit h a di sa bi li ty sh a l l

, b y reas on of su ch

di sa bi li ty, be ex cl ud ed fro m pa rti ci pa ti on in or be de ni ed th e be ne fit s of
th e se rv ic es , pr og ram s, or act iv it ie s of a pu bl ic en ti ty, or be su bjec te d to di sc riminat io n b y

an y su ch en ti ty.

42 U.S.C. § 12 13 2. Thi s co ur t h as no t de ci de d whe th er Tit le II ap pl ie s to

em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n cas es fil ed ag ai ns t pu bl ic em pl oyers, an d th e ci rcu it s th at

ha ve ad dr es se d th is qu es ti on are sp li t. Se e Bd. of Tr s. of Uni v. of

Ala

. v. Gar re tt

, 53 1

U.S. 35 6, 36 0 n.1 (2 00 1) (n ot in g, wit ho ut res ol vi ng , th e ci rcu it sp li t); Zi mmerma n v.

Or. Dep ’t of Ju st ic e , 17 0 F.3 d 11 69

, 11 78 (9 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (h ol di ng th at Tit le II do es

no t st at e a cau se of act io n fo r em pl oym en t di sc ri mi n a t i o n ) ; Bled so e v. Pal m Be ac h

Cn ty

. So il & W

at er Co ns er va ti on Dis t.

, 13 3 F.3 d 81 6, 82 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (h ol di ng

th at Tit le II do es st at e a cau se of act io n fo r em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n)

. W e ne ed no t

de ci de th e is su e to res ol ve th is cas e, ho wev er, be cau se ev en as su m in g th at Brad le y ’s

fai lu re-t o- acco m

m od at e cl ai m

is co gn iz ab le un de r Tit le II, th e cl ai m fai ls

.

Brad le y al le ge s th at LRW fai le d to acco m m od at e hi s di ab et es b e c a u s e it

co ns id ered hi s fai lu re to wear sa fet y sh oe s whe n it d e c i d e d to te rm in at e hi s

em pl oym en t. Brad le y arg ue s th at hi s di ab et es cau se d hi s feet to swe ll whe n he wor e

t h e sa fet y sh oe s an d th at LRW co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly acc om m od at ed hi s di sa bi li t y by pe rio di cal ly al lo win g hi m to wear di ffer en t sh oe s. Brad le y pr es en ts no ev id en ce,
ho wev er, th at he ev er req ue st ed su ch a wor kp la ce acco m m od at io n or th at he ev en to ld

an y on e at LRW ab ou t hi s pr ob le m wit h th e sa fet y sh oe s. As LRW ha d no no ti ce th at

Brad le y so ug ht acco m

m od at io n, it ha d no du ty to acco m m od at e hi m , reg ard le ss of

whe th er hi s pr op os ed acco m m od at io n is reas on ab le

. Se e Bal la rd v. Rub in

, 28 4 F.3 d

95 7, 96 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (h ol di ng th at an em pl oyee m us t pro vi de hi s em

pl oyer wit h

“ en ou gh in fo rm at io n th at

, un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , [th e em pl oyer] can be fai rly sa id

to kn ow t ha t [t he em

pl oyee] so ug ht acco m

m od at io n fo r hi s d is ab il it y ”).

-6

-Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to LRW

on bo th th e FMLA an d t he ADA clai m s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-