[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13976

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

KENNETH G. LEWIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNION HOME MORTGAGE CORP., 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00728-PGB-DAB

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13976 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13976

Before WILSON, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth G. Lewis appeals the district 

court order granting summary judgment to his prospective employer, Defendant-Appellee Union Home Mortgage Corporation

(Union Home), in an employment discrimination action under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (ADA) and 

the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla Stat. § 760.10(1)(a) (FCRA). After 

careful review, we affirm.

I. Background

In December 2016, Lewis suffered an ischemic stroke that 

left him partially disabled and unable to work for over two years. 

Prior to his stroke, he worked as a licensed mortgage loan officer 

for approximately twenty years. Following his recovery, from 

March to September 2019, Lewis worked as a loan officer for Carrington Mortgage Services (CMS). In January 2020, Lewis applied 

for a loan officer position at Union Home. He was not hired for the 

position, and Union Home cited Lewis’s inability to self-source 

business as grounds for its decision. Because Union Home employees are paid on commission, not salary, the company requires loan 

officers to establish and maintain their own client relationships. 

Lewis subsequently filed a Charge of Discrimination against 

Union Home with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Florida Commission of Human Relations. In 2021, he 

sued Union Home, alleging violations of the ADA and FCRA. His 

USCA11 Case: 22-13976 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 2 of 7
22-13976 Opinion of the Court 3

complaint alleged that Union Home discriminated against him because of his disability, and that its explanation for not hiring him 

was a pretext for discrimination. 

Union Home moved for summary judgment, arguing that 

Lewis failed to establish that he was qualified for the position. 

Through discovery, Union Home obtained Lewis’s income documents from 2019, which showed that he closed only two loans during his six-month employment with CMS. Union Home requires 

their loan officers to close three loans per month. Union Home also 

argued that while Lewis was employed by CMS, he did not request 

accommodations, nor did he contend that his low production was 

a result of his disability. Moreover, after Union Home declined to 

hire him, Lewis worked for another mortgage servicer and closed 

only three loans in six months. Additionally, Union Home argued 

that even if Lewis had established he was qualified for the role, he 

failed to show that Union Home declined to hire him because of his 

disability. 

The district court found that no reasonable jury could have 

concluded that Lewis was qualified or that discrimination was the 

reason that Union Home did not hire him, and therefore granted 

summary judgment for Union Home without considering pretext. 

Lewis timely appealed. 

II. Discussion

This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “viewing all evidence and drawing all reasonable 

factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Lewis v. Union 

USCA11 Case: 22-13976 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13976

City, 934 F.3d 1169, 1179 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151, 1154 (11th Cir. 2012)). This court affirms a grant of summary judgment only if there “is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

The ADA prohibits covered private employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of [his] disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Claims brought under the FCRA are 

analyzed under the same framework as claims brought under the 

ADA. Chanda v. Engelhard/ICC, 234 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2000).

Under the ADA framework, a plaintiff must make out a prima facie 

case of discrimination. If the plaintiff is successful, the burden of 

production shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action, and the plaintiff 

must then demonstrate that the employer’s proffered reason was a 

pretext for discrimination. Lewis, 934 F.3d at 1179; see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804–07 (1973).

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the 

ADA, a plaintiff must show that he: “(1) is disabled, (2) is a qualified 

individual, (3) and was discriminated against because of [his] disability.” Lewis, 934 F.3d at 1179. It is undisputed that Lewis is disabled. We begin our analysis, then, by considering whether Lewis 

was “qualified” for the role to which he applied.

A. Qualified

A qualified individual is one who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the 

USCA11 Case: 22-13976 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 4 of 7
22-13976 Opinion of the Court 5

employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Lewis, 

934 F.3d at 1182 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)). Essential functions 

include “the fundamental job duties of the employment position 

the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1630.2(n)(1). Whether a function is essential “is evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis,” and factors to consider include: (1) the employer’s judgment regarding which functions are essential; (2) the 

posted job descriptions; (3) the time spent on the job performing 

the function; (4) the consequences of not performing the function; 

(5) the terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (6) the work experience of past employees; and (7) the current work experience of 

employees in similar jobs. Lewis, 934 F.3d at 1182 (quoting D’Angelo 

v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also 

20 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). No matter how mistaken an employer

may be, this court’s “inquiry is limited to whether an employer 

gave an honest explanation of its behavior.” Elrod v. Sears, 939 F.2d 

1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Mechnigv. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 

864 F.2d 1359, 1365 (7th Cir. 1988)).

Viewing all facts in a light most favorable to Lewis, we find 

that Lewis did not establish that he was qualified to serve as a Union Home loan officer. Union Home has demonstrated, through 

the qualifications and output of their workforce, that self-sourcing 

business is a key qualification for loan officer candidates. Lewis’s 

employment history—as well as his performance after being rejected from Union Home—indicate that there is no genuine issue 

as to his inability to perform essential job functions.

USCA11 Case: 22-13976 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13976

B. Causation

Even if Lewis could meet the second prong of the prima facie test, he fails to meet the element of causation and thus cannot 

show a prime facie case of discrimination. A plaintiff can prove that 

an employer treated an individual outside of his protected class 

more favorably by showing that he and a comparator were “similarly situated in all material respects.” Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 

F.3d 1213, 1229 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc). Generally, a “similarly 

situated” comparator will have “engaged in the same basic conduct 

(or misconduct) as the plaintiff,” “been subject to the same employment policy,” “will ordinarily (although not invariably) have been 

under the jurisdiction of the same supervisor,” and “will share the 

plaintiff’s employment or disciplinary history.” Id. at 1227–28.

We find persuasive United Home’s argument that, even if 

Lewis had established he was qualified, he failed to show that 

United Home declined to hire him because of his disability. Lewis 

failed to identify similarly situated comparators, as his alleged comparators were hired for different positions, by different regional 

managers, and demonstrated an ability to self-source business. 

Thus, Lewis failed to establish a prima facie case of disability 

discrimination.1

1 Because Lewis failed to demonstrate a prime facie case of disability discrimination, we do not need to address the pretext arguments.

USCA11 Case: 22-13976 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 6 of 7
22-13976 Opinion of the Court 7

III. Conclusion

For the reasons given above, the district court did not err in 

granting summary judgment to Union Home.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13976 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 7 of 7