FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 19, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 13365

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 9 2 - CV - O C- 1 0 G RJ T O M M Y E . H O L L Y , a n in d iv id u a l, P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C L A I R S O N I N D U S T R I E S , L .L .C ., a F lo r id a L im ite d L ia b ility , 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 l y 19, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: T he pl a i nt i f

f , T om m y H ol l y ( “ H ol l y ” ) , appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a nt2

of f i na l s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f a vorof hi s f or m e re m pl oy e r , de f

e nda ntC l a i r s on I n d u s tr ie s ( “C la ir s o n ” ) , o n H o lly ’s c la im s th a t C la ir s o n f a ile d to r e a s o n a b ly a c c o m m o d a te h is d is a b ility , in v io la tio n o f T itle I o f

th e A m e r ic a n s w ith D i s a bi l i t i e s A c tof

1990, 42 U . S . C . §§ 12111- 12117 ( “ A D A ” ) , a nd i t s F l or i da anal og , the F l ori da C i vi l R i gh t s A ctof 19 92 , F l a. S t at . § 7 60 . 01 (“ F C R A ”) . A ft er s e v e n te e n y e a r s o f

s tr o n g w o r k p e r f

o r m a n c e d u r in g w h ic h C la ir s o n in f o r m a lly acco m m o d at ed H o l l y’ s d i sab i l i ty-rel at ed t ard i n ess, C l ai rso n t erm i n at ed H o l l y, pu rs uantt o i t s new , no -f aul tpu nctual i ty pol i cy . T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed s um m a r y j udgm e ntt o C l a i r s on a f t e rf i ndi ng tha ts tr i c tpunc tua l i ty , a s de f i ne d by C l a i r s on’ s ne w pol i c y , w a s a n “ e s s e nt i a l f unc t i on” of

H ol l y ’ s j ob w i thi n the m e a ni ng of

the s t a tut e s , a nd tha tH ol l y w a s i nc apa bl e of pe r f or m i ng tha tf

unc t i on “w ith o rw ith o u t a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f u r th e rh e ld , in the a l t e r na t i ve , tha tH ol l y w a s notthe vi c t i m of unl a w f ul di s c r i m i na t i on be c a us e he h ad o ffered n o ev i d en ce th atC l ai rso n h ad treat ed h i m d i fferen t l y fro m si m i l arl ysi tu at ed , n o n -d i sab l ed em p l o yees. A f t e rthor ough r e vi e w of

thi s r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tge nui ne i s s ue s of m at er i al fa ctexi stconcerni ng w hether s tri ctpu nctual i ty w as an “ es se nt i al f unc t i on” of

H ol l y ’ s pos i t i on. A c c or di ngl y , the e ntr y of s um m a r y j udgm e ntf

or C la ir s o n o n th is is s u e w a s im p r o p e r . M o r e o v e r , it w a s e r r o rf o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to3

h a v e h e ld , in th e a lte r n a tiv e , th a t H o lly is r e q u ir e d to p r e s e n t e v id e n c e th a t h is e m pl oy e rtr e a t e d hi m di f f e r e nt l y tha n hi s non- di s a bl e d c o- w or ke r s . U nde rthe p la in la n g u a g e o f

th e A D A a n d th e F C R A , a n e m p lo y e r ’s f a ilu r e to r e a s o n a b ly ac com m od at e a n “ otherw i se qu al i fi ed” di sabl ed em pl oyee i t se l f c on st i tut es un l aw ful di sc ri m i nat i on , un l es s the em pl oyerca n sho w “ un du e har dshi p. ” A c c o r d in g ly , w e r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is opi ni on. I . Ba c k g r o und T he r e l e va ntf

a c t s i n thi s s um m a r y j udgm e ntr e c or d, w hi c h w e t a ke i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o H ol l y a s the non- m ova nt , s e e E a r l v. M e r vy ns , I nc . , 207 F . 3d 13 61 , 13 65 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( per c uri am ), ar e these . H ol l y bec am e a p a r ap le g ic in 1 9 8 4 , a t th e a g e o f a b o u t 2 0 , a s a r e s u lt o f

a m o to r c y c le a c c id e n t. S i n ce th en , H o l l y h as b een co n fi n ed t o a w h eel ch ai r fo r th e m aj o ri ty o f each d ay, a lth o u g h h e is a b le to d r iv e a n a u to m o b ile . C la ir s o n h ir e d H o lly in 1 9 8 6 , s h o r tly af t erC l ai rs on ’ s openi ng . C l ai rs on i s acust om pl as t i c i nj ec t i on s m ol der that m anufactures , usi ng an as se m bl y l i ne, i nd ustri al and m edi ca l devi ce s s uch as di sposabl e s urgi ca l t oo l s. H ol l y w as hi re d for the po si t i on of m ol d p ol i sher , w here f orm a ny y e a r s he w or ke d i n the t ool r oom pol i s hi ng m ol ds a f t e rthe y c a m e of

f the a s s e m b ly lin e . H o lly ’s s h if t r a n f r o m 7 :0 0 a m to 3 :0 0 p m , a lth o u g h h e n o r m a llyHolly testified that his disability was the dire ct ca

use of a pproxi mately

95% of the 1 occa sions on which he wa s late to work; the remaining5%, he said, was due to we ather or vehicle dif

ficulties. Holly

also testified that he had no attendanc e or punc tuality problems during more than f

our year s prior to his acc ident when heworke d at a larg e grocery store chain stocking sh e lve s. The testimony

of Dennis Mill er, H olly ’s supervisor during his last seven or so year s at 2 Clair so n, sug g e sts that e mpl oye e s ma y havehad s e ven minute s b e fo rethesta rt of the ir sh if t in which to clock in. Seeinfra note5. 4 w or ke d m or e tha n f

or ty , a nd s om e t i m e s a s m a ny a s s i xty , hour s pe rw e e k. A l tho ug h H ol l y has never had an att endance proble m , he ac kn ow l edges that fr om the begi nn i ng of hi s e m pl oym entatC l ai rs on , hi s di sabi l i ty f re qu ent l y c ause d hi m t o arr i ve l at e t o w ork. C l ai rs on em pl oyee s’ pu nctual i ty i s r ec orded w hen t hey 1

“ p u n ch i n ” fo r w o rk o n a t i m e cl o ck l o cat ed i n th e b reak ro o m . E m p l o yees access the br e a k r oom i n one of tw o w a y s : ut i l i z i ng e i the ra n i nt e r na l e ntr a nc e f r om the m a i n a r e a of

the w a r e hous e i nt o the br e a k r oom ora n e xt e r na l e ntr a nc e f r om the pa r ki ng l oti nt o the br e a k r oom . T o a voi d ove r t i m e c ha r ge s , e m pl oy e e s a r e not p erm i tt ed t o cl o ck i n p ri o r t o fi v e m i n u t es b efo re th e st arto f th ei r sh i ft . T h u s, 2 H ol l y w as re qu i re d t o cl ock i n b etw ee n 6 : 55 and 7 : 00 a. m . i n o rdert o b e on t i m e. F orthe f i r s tf i f t e e n y e a r s ors o of

H ol l y ’ s e m pl oy m e ntw i th C l a i r s on, abse nt ee i sm and t ar di ness w er e pri m ar i l y a dd re ss ed atan em pl oyee ’ s a nn ual r e v ie w , w h e r e s u p e r v is o r s h a d s o m e d is c r e tio n o v e rw h e th e rto a lte rth e ir r e c o m m e n d a tio n s f

o rr e te n tio n a n d s a la ry r a is e s b a s e d o n a n e m p lo y e e ’s ta r d in e s s . M o ld p o lis h e r s a r e d ir e c tly s u p e r v is e d b y th e M o ld S h o p M a n a g e r . T h u s , H o lly5

a d d r e s s e d th e ta r d in e s s p r o b le m s c a u s e d b y h is d is a b ility b y d is c u s s in g th e m w ith the M ol d S hop M a na ge r . T he M ol d S hop M a na ge rf r om 1988 t o 1996, S t e ve N i l son (“ N i l son”), and t he M ol d S ho p M anager f rom 19 99 t o 2 00 4, D enni s M i l l er (“ M i l l er ”) , col l ec t i vel y s erved as H ol l y’ s i m m edi at e s up ervi sor f or som e thi rt ee n o f H o lly ’s s e v e n te e n y e a r s w ith C la ir s o n . E a c h g a v e d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y in th is c a s e . A c c or di ng t o M i l l e r , unde rthi s “ f l e xi bl e ” pol i c y , “ [ i ] f

the H [ um a n] R [ e s o u r c e s ] p e o p le w o u ld ap p r o a c h m e a n d s a y th a t a m a n h a d b e e n ta r d y o rla te ora bs e ntorw ha t e ve r , I ha d the a uthor i ty t o t e l l the m tha ti tw a s oka y by m e f or w hat everre as on . ” H ol l y t es t i fi ed, and t he re cord ref l ec t s, thatw hen h e w as l at e t o w ork, i tw as u su al l y o n l y b y a m i n u t e o r so . B o th M i l l er an d N i l so n t est i fi ed th ato n th ese occa si on s - - w hi ch they a gree d acc ou nt ed for the vastm aj ori ty of hi s t ar di es -- the y di d notnot i c e tha tH ol l y w a s l a t e , a nd onl y l e a r ne d of the s e t a r di e s f

r om H um an R es ou rc es pri or t o an ann ual re vi ew . H ol l y gave vari ou s di sabi l i ty- re l at ed re as on s f or bei ng a m i nu t e or s o l at e. “ O cc as i on al l y, ” he s ai d, on e of s ever al pi c ni c t a bl e s i n the br e a k r oom ha d be e n m ove d i n f r ontof the t i m e c l oc k, bl oc ki ng hi s a cc es s t o the cl ock from hi s w heel chai r. A l tho ug h C l ai rs on no rm al l y m ov ed s u c h ta b le s a s s o o n a s H o lly a s k e d th e m to d o s o , H o lly ’s s u p e r v is o rf r o m 1 9 9 6 to 19 99 , G re g H uff, no t ed on som e of hi s a nn ual re vi ew s thatsom e of the t ar di esIn e arly 20 04 , Cl air so n ac quire d a new timec loc k th at us e d empl oye e s’ ha nd print s to 3 clock them in. At first, Clairson installed this device too high for Holly to reach from his seated p o s i t i o ni nh i s wh e e l c h ai r . AtH o l l y ’ s re qu e s t , C l ai r s o nre i n s t al l e d th ec l o c k ata l o w e r l e v e l . It appea rs from the record that this additional problem was a one -time occurrence that could not havec a us e d H olly

to c loc k in

latemoretha

n o nc e , at mo st. 6 reco rd ed th ere w ere d u e t o o ccasi o n s w h en th e t i m e cl o ck h ad b een b l o ck ed b y a t abl e. M i l l ersi m i l ar l y c on fi rm ed that“ [t ] he break ar eaw here the t i m e c l ock w as s i tua t e d w a s e xtr e m e l y s m a l l . A nd due t o the num be rof e m pl oy e e s tha tthe c o m p a n y h a d , th e y h a d to h a v e a lo t o f ta b le s in th e b r e a k r o o m to a c c o m m o d a te th e p e o p l e d u r i n g th e i rb r e a k s a n d th e t i me c l o c k w a s b a c k b e h i n d th e t a b l e s . So w hen [H ol l y] ca m e i nt o the break ar ea , he had t o w ea ve hi s w ay throu gh the t abl es t o g etback t o the cl ock. A nd i tw as l i ke thatup t o, prob abl y, si x m on ths before I l e f t ” i n M a y of

2004. 3 H ol l y t e s t i f

i e d tha ta tothe rt i m e s , pa l l e t s of r a w m a t e r i a l s bl oc ke d the i nt e r i orore xt e r i ore ntr a nc e t o the br e a k r oom . B e c a us e C l a i r s on w a s s hor ton st orage s pace , he expl ai ned, i tt ended t o st ore bot h raw m at er i al s a nd fi ni shed p r o d u c t in a n y d r y p la c e it c o u ld f in d . H o lly te s tif

ie d th a t M ille ro f

te n f o u g h t w ith A r c hi e M a nn, the pe r s on i n c ha r ge of the pr oduc t i on a r e a i n the w a r e hous e , a bout th e f a c tth a t“ h a l l w a y s , e n tr a n c e s , [ th e ] t o o l r o o m a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y th e b r e a k r o o m” w e r e bl oc ke d, buttha tM a nn w oul d r e s pond tha the ha d now he r e e l s e t o pl a c e the m at er i al s, and t hat“ m ore than o nce” M i l l erun bl ocked t hese pl ac es hi m se l f. M i l l erTh edis tric t c ourt , a pp arently re ferringto t

hisinc ident, state d th at “ [i]n additi on ”to 4 Clairson’s ac commodatingHolly by moving table s blockingthe time clock a nd loweringthe time clock itself, “there is evidence in the record that Holly was told to simply

arrive to work ten minutes earlier

each day . . . .” Order at 21 n.47. Even assumingthat this would have constituted a re asonableacc ommodation from Holly ’s per spective, a s we re ad the record, Mann ma dethi s sug g e sti on

to M ill e r, a

nd thereis n o evide nc etha

t Mi ller ever c omm

unic ate d it

to H o l l y. Holly

testified that “a

ny where from thirty

to forty” cow orker s might be in line waiting 5 to clock in with him. Mil ler likewise te stified that “thirty-five to f orty people [would be] trying to get into that ti me clock in a seven minute span. And Tommy beingin a whee lchair, w as always at the end.”Miller explained that smokers would smoke just outside the break room and wait to clock in until the last possible moment. On the other hand, Cloteen Kilkelly , who was hired a s a consultant by

Clairson in March of

2003 and bec ame Pre sident of Clairson in April of 2004, only

weeks before Holly

was ter minated, testified that “[p]ossi bly” one- hundred e mp l o ye e s w o r

k e d thr e es h i f t s p ri o r t o H o l l y’ s t e r

m i n at i o n , an d

th at“ a p p ro x i m at e l y[ ] tw e ntyone” employees sha

red H olly ’s shift. She also testified that she had never seen morethan two employees in line to cloc k in at once, although shealso testified that she did not know, and thus could not answer, whe ther a line forms at the time c lock in the morning s. Despite this apparent fac tual dispute amongmembers of Clairson’s own manag ement, the district cour t found that Holly worke d with approxim ately twenty-one other employees during his shift. See O rder at 7. 7 c onf i r m e d tha tH ol l y ha d c om pl a i ne d t o hi m “ on s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons ” a boutva r i ous bl ockages and thatM i l l erhad d i sc usse d the prob l em w i th M ann, w ho had s u g g e s te d th a t H o lly s im p ly a r r iv e to w o r k “te n o rf if te e n m in u te s e a r lie r ” to “m o v e a r o u n d o u ro b s ta c le s .” H o lly e s tim a te d th a t th e s e b lo c k a g e s c a u s e d h im to 4 b e la te f o u ro rf iv e tim e s a f

te rth e n e w p o lic y w e n t in to a f f e c t. H o l l y a l s o s a i d th a t“ o c c a s i o n a l l y ” h e w a s u n a b l e t o c l o c k i n o n t i me because he w as i n a l on g l i ne of fe l l ow em pl oyee s a l so try i ng t o cl ock i n. In 5 a d d itio n , a lth o u g h e v e r y e m p lo y e e e n c o u n te r s th e o c c a s io n a l c a rp r o b le m , h e s a id thatsom e types of ca r probl em s w ou l d b e par t i cul ar l y di ff i cul tfor hi m t o fi x, gi ven hi s di s a bi l i ty . S i m i l a r l y , i f i tw e r e r a i ni ng he a vi l y w he n he a r r i ve d a tw or k, heMil ler replac e d N ils on a s Mo ld S hop M anag e r when N ils on wa s p ro mot e d to , f

ir st, 6 Direc tor of Sales, a

nd in later succ ession, to Direc tor of Eng ineering, D irec tor of Sales a nd Eng ineering, a

nd, finally , Vice Pre sident of Eng ineering. At all times, however, themold shop was under his indirect super vision. 8 s o m e tim e s w a ite d in h is c a rf o rth e r a in to s u b s id e ; h e h a d d if f ic u lty h a n d lin g h is w he e l c ha i ra nd a n um br e l l a a tthe s a m e t i m e , a nd unl i ke hi s c o- w or ke r s , onc e he w a s w e t h e w o u ld r e m a in w e t th r o u g h o u t th e w o r k d a y , s in c e h e w a s u n a b le to st and u p and dry off

. F i nal l y, H ol l y s ai d thathe se es a urol og i stthree t o fou r t i m es per y ea r f

or com pl i ca t i on s r el at ed t o h i s di sabi l i ty, and t hatthi s, t oo , som et i m es c a us e d hi m t o be l a t e t o w or k. M ore r ar el y, H ol l y w as no t i ce abl y l at e - - by thi rty m i nu t es or m ore. S uch l at enes s occ urre d w hen H ol l y l ostbo w el cont rol w hi l e dri vi ng t o w ork -- a c ons e que nc e of

hi s di s a bi l i ty - - a nd ha d t o r e tur n hom e t o c ha nge be f or e he a di ng b a c k to w o r k a g a in . H o lly d id n o t f e e l c o m f o r ta b le d is c u s s in g th is p r o b le m w ith N i l son, bu tw hen H ol l y’ s c o-w orker, M i l l er , w as prom ot ed t o M ol d S ho p M anager, H o l l y c o n f

i d e d i n M i l l e r . A c c o r d i n g t o M i l l e r , “ w h a tI d i d i s , I ap p r o a c h e d my

6 bos s , S t e ve [ N i l s on] , a ttha tt i m e , a nd he , i n tur n, appr oa c he d P hi l E f f i nge r , [ w ho] w a s the pr e s i de ntof

the c om pa ny a tthe t i m e , t o e xpr e s s tha ta nd e xpl a i n tha t . A nd thatki nd of hel ped u s l etsom e of tho se sl i de and i tal so hel ped u s gethi m m on ey a t th e e n d o f

th e y e a rw h e n h is r e v ie w s w e r e d u e .” M ol d S hop M a na ge r s w e r e r e qui r e d t o ha ve the i ra nnua l r e vi e w ofThe re cord refle cts that Holly rec eived raises on at lea st the following oc casions. There 7 is no record evidenc e re g ardingHolly ’s hourly rateof pay

from the date he be g an wor king f or Clairson, on November

3, 1986, until May

1, 1989. On that date, H olly rec eived a

raise f rom $5.85 to $6.25 per hour. O n November 3, 1989, Holly

rec eived a

raise to $6.75 per hour. On 9 em pl oyee s app roved b y E ff i ng er . N i l son t es t i fi ed thatH ol l y’ s num ber of t ar di es w o u ld “ju m p o u t” c o m p a r e d to th o s e o f o th e rm o ld p o lis h e r s , a n d th a t H o lly so m et i m es d i d n o trecei v e a rai se o r received a l o w er rai se th an h e o th erw i se de s e r ve d due t o hi s t a r di ne s s , buttha tH ol l y “ w a s ke pton be c a us e of hi s j ob pe r f or m a nc e . I n the M ol d S hop D e pa r tm e nta t a r di ne s s i s s ue di d nota f f e c thow w or k w a s done , ve r s us , a s i ti s i n pr oduc t i on. M a nuf a c tur i ng i s r e a l l y s e ns i t i ve w here m ol d b ui l di ng i s not . ” M i l l er , w ho supervi se d H ol l y i n h i s l as tse vera l ye ar s a tC l a i r s on, t e s t i f

i e d tha the ga ve H ol l y a r a i s e “ [ e ] ve r y t i m e ” he c a m e up f or rev i ew , o b serv i n g th atm o l d p o l i sh i n g “ w asn ’ tas t i m e sen si t i v e as o th er areas,” so th a t “if s o m e b o d y s ta y e d la te , a s o p p o s e d to c o m in g in e a r ly , it w o u ld n ’t r e a lly m att eras l on g as the w ork w as do ne. ” I ti s und i sput ed thatH ol l y di d i nd ee d g et h is w o r k d o n e in a tim e ly f a s h io n b y w o r k in g th r o u g h b r e a k s o ra f te rh is s h if

t to m a k e u p f

o ra n y tim e h e lo s t a t th e b e g in n in g o f h is s h if t. C l a i r s on c onc e de s tha tH ol l y ha d a good a tt e nda nc e ( a s oppos e d t o a p u n ctu al i ty) reco rd , an d th at“ [o ] th er th an H o l l y’ s [t ard i n ess] p ro b l em s, h e w as a good e m pl oy e e . ” I n f

a c t , C l a i r s on appr ove d num e r ous a nd r e gul a rm e r i tr a i s e s f or H o l l y th ro u g h o u th i s sev en t een -year t en u re atC l ai rso n ; H o l l y recei v ed h i s l ast 7May

30, 1990, Holly

rec eived a

raise to $7.10 per hour. On N ovember 3, 1990, he re ceive d a raise to $8.00 per hour. There is no information on Holly ’s rate of pa y between November

3, 1990 and November 5, 1996, but by the latter date, Holly

was e arning$11.00 per hour and on that datere c e ive d a

raiseto $ 11 .2 5 p e r h our. On No vember 3 , 1 99 7, Ho lly re c e ive d a

raiseto $12.25 per hour . On November 3, 1998, Holly rec eived a

raise to $12.75 per hour. On No vember 2 , 1 99 9, Ho lly re c e ive d a

raiseto $ 13 .7 5 p e r h our. On No vember 6 , 2 00 0, Ho lly rec eived a

raise to $14.25 per hour. There is no information on Holly ’s rate of pa y between No vember 6 , 2 00 0 a

nd F ebr ua ry 20 04 , when h ere c e ive d a raiseof thirt y-e ight c e nts . Cloteen Kilkelly , who was at the time of Holly ’s last raiseEx ecutive V ice Pre sident of 8 Clairson, and who would be come Pre sident two months later in April of 2004, testified that she could not explain why

Holly had re ceive d a raise when hewas provingincapa ble of perfor

ming what Clairson alleg es is an essential function of Holly ’s job, although Kilkelly conce ded that she had “signed off

”on that raise. 10 m e r i tr a i s e i n F e brua r y of 2004, j us tw e e ks be f

or e he w a s t e r m i na t e d on M a y 3 of th a t y e a r . I n f

a c t, b o th o f

H o lly ’s s u p e r v is o r s te s tif ie d th a t h e w a s v e r y g o o d a t h is 8 jo b . M ille rs a id H o lly “w a s a lw a y s a g o o d w o r k e r . . . . H e w a s e x tr e m e ly ta le n te d . E xtr e m e l y or ga ni z e d, ve r y ne a t , or de r l y , ve r y m e t i c ul ous a boutthe s tuf f tha the di d. ” M i l l e rt e s t i f

i e d tha the r e gul a r l y r e c om m e nde d r a i s e s f orH ol l y ba s e d on H o lly ’s “a b ility to p e r f

o r m h is jo b , th e q u a lity o f h is w o r k m a n s h ip , h is d e p e n d a b i l i ty . T o m m y wa s o n e o f th o s e f e l l a s th a tm a y c o m e i n a m i n u t e o rtwo l a t e i n the m or ni ng, buthe w oul d m a ke i tup. W he the rhe w oul d s t a y ove ri n the eveni ng , w ork t hrou gh a bre ak, w ork t hrou gh a l un ch ho ur, w ork t hrou gh w hat ever t o he l p the c om pa ny ge tthe j ob done . ” N i l s on s i m i l a r l y t e s t i f i e d tha t“ [ f

] r om a j ob perf orm ance st andp oi nt , [H ol l y] di d h i s j ob very w el l . ” H ol l y ’ s pe r f

or m a nc e e va l ua t i ons by a l l f ourM ol d S hop M a na ge r s w ho s u p e r v is e d H o lly d u r in g h is s e v e n te e n y e a r s a t C la ir s o n s u p p o r t th is te s tim o n y .The policy also has a reduction provision: for e ach 90- day period in which the 9 employee ha s no occur

renc es, Clairson will remove oneoccur renc e from his record. In addition, e a c h o c c ur

renc eis re mov e d o neye ar f ro m th edateon

whic h it a c c ru e s. 11 T h ey co n si st en t l y g av e H o l l y g o o d -t o -ex cel l en trev i ew s, an d d escri b ed h i m as a

“ very depend abl e” and “ re l i abl e” em pl oyee w ho “ al w ay s hangs i n there w hen [ n e e d e d ],” a n d a s “a r e a l a s s e t to o u rs h o p .” H o lly ’s s u p e r v is o r s a ls o p r a is e d h im f orhi s “ e xc e l l e nt ” pr oduc t i vi ty a nd i ni t i a t i ve , f orhi s “ ve r y good w or k, ” a nd f or

“ al w ay s hel p[i ng ] ou tw hen p ol i shi ng i s s ca rc e. ” O nce, H ol l y w as nam ed E m p lo y e e o f

th e M o n th . In M ar ch of 20 03 , C l ai rs on hi re d C l ot ee n K i l kel l y ( “ K i l kel l y” ), an em pl oyee b e n e f its s p e c ia lis t, to a d v is e C la ir s o n o n h o w to m a k e s o m e c h a n g e s in th a t a r e a . ( I n N o v e m b e ro f

2 0 0 3 , K ilk e lly b e c a m e E x e c u tiv e V ic e P r e s id e n t a n d th e n , in A pr i l of 2004, P r e s i de nt . ) O n J une 15, 2003, on K i l ke l l y ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on, C l ai rs on i nst i tut ed a new , “ no -f aul t ” A tt endance P ol i cy . U nd erthe po l i cy , ea ch a bs e nc e f r om w or k c ount s a s one “ oc c ur r e nc e , ” w hi l e e a c h pa r t i a l a bs e nc e - - or t a r dy - - c ount s a s a one - ha l f oc c ur r e nc e . A n e m pl oy e e w ho c l oc ks i n e ve n one se cond pasthi s s hi ftst artt i m e r ec ei ves aon e- hal f occ urre nce. T he po l i cy prov i des for aprog re ss i ve se ri es of verbal and w ri tt en w arni ng s a s a n em pl oyee ac crues m or e oc c ur r e nc e s , a nd pr ovi de s f ori m m e di a t e t e r m i na t i on upon the a c c rua l of ei gh t ee n t ar di es (or ni ne occurre nces ) w i thi n o ne ye ar . 912

A s the c om pa ny ’ s E m pl oy e e M a nua l e xpl a i ns , the pol i c y e m pl oy s a “ N oF aul tS t andard”: U nd erthe no -f

aul tapproach, there ar e no excused or un excuse d abse n ce s. E m pl oyee s nee d n otprov e the l egi t i m ac y of a n absence, no r a re m anagers / supervi sors forc ed t o d i ff er ent i at e betw ee n ac ce pt abl e a nd un ac ce pt abl e r ea sons for a n absence. U n d era “n o -f

au lt ” s ys tem , th er e is n o n e ed fo r a w ritt en p h ys ician ’s ex cu se. P h ysi ci an ’ s st at em en t s w i l l b e req u i red t o su p p o rta req u est f ora m e di c a l l e a ve . M e di c a l l e a ve s a r e gr a nt e d f orpe r i ods o f f

i ve ( 5) d a y s o rm o r e . T hus , a s K i l ke l l y t e s t i f

i e d, t a r dy e m pl oy e e s m a y notm a ke up l os tt i m e dur i ng br e a ks ora f

t e rthe i rs hi f

t . N orm a y the y pl a n t o be e xc us a bl y t a r dy f ora ny r e a s on, i nc l udi ng t o s e e a doc t or( unl e s s the i rm e di c a l c ondi t i on r e s ul t s i n the i rm i s s i ng fi ve or m ore c on se cut i ve days of w ork). E ven p ai d v ac at i on coun t s t ow ar d an em pl oyee ’ s “ occurre nce” al l ot m ent . M oreover, the E m pl oyee M anual st at es that “[ a ]tte n d a n c e is a n e s s e n tia l jo b f u n c tio n f o ra ll a t th e C o m p a n y . E m p lo y e e s w ith A m e r ic a n D is a b ility A c t [ s ic ] s itu a tio n s a r e n o t e x e m p t f r o m th is p o lic y .” T he E m pl oy e e M a nua l e xpl a i ns i t s r a t i ona l e thi s w a y . A s f orthe

“ A tt en d an ce P o l i cy” i n g en eral , th e h an d b o o k says: E a c h e m pl oy e e i s e xpe c t e d t o w or k the hour s nor m a l l y sch e dul e d f or h i s o r h er p o si t i o n . W h en em p l o yees fai l t o t ak e at t en d an ce seri o u s l y, t i m e c on sum i ng re arra ng em ent s a nd cost l y r epl ac em ent s a re oft en n e c e s s a ry to m a in ta in o u rb u s in e s s a c t i v i t y . E a c h e m p lo y e e is th e r e f o r e r e s p o n s ib le f

o rr e p o r tin g to w o r k r e g u la r ly a n d o n tim e . . . .13

W i th resp ectt o “ P art i al A b sen ces/ T ard i n ess” i n p art i cu l ar, th e h an d b o o k ex p l ai n s: T ar dy em pl oyee s m ay del ay as se m bl y op er at i on s and f or ce o ther em pl oyee s t o st and i dl e a s th e sup ervi sor w ai t s f or un pu nctual e m pl oy e e s t o r e por tt o w or k orunt i l t e m por a r y r e pl a c e m e nt s c a n be o r ie n te d a n d p la c e d o n th e jo b . . . . K i l ke l l y t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe purpos e of

the no- f a ul ts t a nda r d w a s t o “ t a ke [ ] the s ubj e c t i vi ty s om e w ha toutof pe opl e be i ng tr e a t e d di f f e r e nt l y by di f

f e r e nt s u p e r v is o r s ” a n d “to a d d r e s s th e c h r o n ic o f f e n d e r .” S h e c o n f

ir m e d th a t u n d e rth is st an d ard , th ere are n o accep t ab l e reaso n s fo r b ei n g t ard y. M i l l ert es t i fi ed thaton ce H ol l y l ea rned of the new po l i cy , H ol l y app roac hed M i l l e r , the n hi s i m m e di a t e s upe r vi s or , a nd “ s a i d t o m e tha ty ou know , ‘ I t ’ s goi ng to b e e x tr e m e ly d if

f ic u lt f o rm e to d o th is w ith m y p r o b le m s th a t I h a v e .’” H o lly f ur the rs a i d tha tM i l l e rt ol d hi m on a tl e a s tone oc c a s i on tha the “ w oul d go t o the fr on toffi ce and t al k t o them [o] n m y behal f. ” T he re cord i s uncl ea r a s t o h ow fa r up C l ai rs on ’ s m anagem entchai n H ol l y’ s e xp re ss ed concern w entaf t erthi s. M i l l er added t hati nst ea d o f app roac hi ng K i l kel l y, he approached N i l son. M i l l er ex p l ai n ed th atK i l k el l y w as ki nd of a h an ds-off pers on t o m e t o sup ervi sors [s i c] . S he l i ked d e a lin g w ith h e rm a n a g e r s , w h ic h S te v e n N ils o n w a s m y im m e d ia te m a na g e r . A n d St e v e a n d I t a l k e d a l l th e t i me a b o u td i f f e r e nt pr oc ed u res a nd pol i c i e s a nd w ha tw e c oul d do. A nd S t e ve n a nd m ysel f k n ew th ata m i n u t e o r tw o la te w as n o th u rt i n g th e co m p an y. W e kne w i tw a s be i ng m a de up. W e k n ew tha tthe guy s w e r e tr y i ng v ery h ard fo r w h at ev er reaso n . B u tw h eth er h e carried that on t o M s.14

K ilk e lly , I c a n ’t a n s w e rth a t. M i l l eral so sa i d thathe expres se d t o N i l son h i s c on ce rns thatun der the new po l i cy e m p lo y e e s w ith m e d ic a l p r o b le m s w o u ld b e d is a d v a n ta g e d : I w i l l gi ve you an exam pl e. W e had som e f el l ow s thatar e di abet i cs t hatha ve t o t a ke c e r t a i n bl oo d t e s t s w hi c h ha [ ve ] t o be pe r f orm ed at s e v e n a . m. i n th e m or ni ng . . . . f o u rt i me s a y e a r . . . . So e v e r y t i me th e y d i d th a t , th e y g o t. . . h a l f a n o c c ur r e nc e . . . . A n d I e x p r e s s e d my c onc e rn t o h i m a bout , “ Y ou ha ve a m ode l e m pl oy e e he r e tha tw or ks f i f ty - f i v e , s i x ty h o u r s a we e k , S a tu r d a y s , S u n d a y s , wh a t e v e r , a n d we ca n ’tm ak e a n ac co m m o d atio n fo r a fe ll o w th a t a c tu a lly h as a d o cto r’s ap p o i n tme n t ?”

. . . I to ld [N il so n ] I tho ug hti tw as un fa i r. . . . T he m en thatw orked the da y s hi f

t h av e t o go t o the doc t or . T he w om e n ha ve t o go t o the doc t or . T he r e ha s t o be s om e ty pe of e xc e pt i o n s m ad e w he r e the p o lic y i s fl ex i b l e en o u g h t o al l o w yo u t o d o th at . A n d th i s w as so i r onc l a d, a nd S t e ve n N i l s o n ag reed w i th m e . B uthe s a i d i t ’ s be e n the di re ct i ve fr om H R and t hat ’ s the w ay i t ’ s goi ng t o b e. N i l so n , i n tu rn , w h o w as atth e t i m e a v i ce p resi d en to f th e co m p an y, t e s t i f i e d tha tonl y C l a i r s on’ s pr e s i de nt , K i l ke l l y , ha d the a uthor i ty t o ve t o a t erm i n at i o n , an d th atw i th resp ectt o H o l l y, h e “ h ad g o n e t o H R tryi n g t o rev erse oc c ur r e nc e s , be c a us e i t ’ s ve r y di f f i c ul tt o r e pl a c e a n e m pl oy e e of tha tt a l e nt . A nd I w as t ol d thatthe sy st em i s i n p l ac e f or a r ea son, and n o except i on s c an be m ade. ” N i l s o n s a i d h e a r g u e d t o H u ma n Re s o u r c e s , “ I n e e d th i s e mp l o y e e i n my de pa r tm e nt , i t ’ s e xtr e m e l y ha r d t o r e pl a c e a m ol d pol i s he ra nd be c a us e our d ep artm en ti s n o tas at t en d an t[si c] sen si t i v e as o th er d ep artm en t s i n th e co m p an y,Holly was lateby

one minute on the followingeight dates in 2003 -- June 26, July 7, 10 July 10, July 17, July 22, August 25, September 15, September 23 -- a nd on the followingfour dates in 2004 -- April 9, April 22, April 23, and A pril 28. Holly

was lateby

five minutes on March 1 1, 20 04 , a

nd on Ap ri l 27 , 2 00 4, and

hewa s lateby

six min ute s o n April 1 3, 20 04 . H olly was lateby

fifty-threeminutes on Febr uary 16, 2004. Clairson’s rec ords indicate theextent of Holly ’s tardine ss on only six teen of

the eighteen oc casions.

15 I w a nt e d t o r e t a i n hi m . ” H ow e ve r , H ol l y ’ s di s a bi l i ty appa r e nt l y di d not s pe c i f i c a l l y e nt e ri nt o N i l s on’ s c onve r s a t i on w i th H um a n R e s our c e s a bout r e ta in in g H o lly . O n O ct o b er 1 , 2 0 0 3 , H o l l y recei v ed a v erb al w arn i n g , p u rsu an tt o th e p o l i cy, a f t e rbe i ng l a t e e i ghtt i m e s , f ora t ot a l of

f ouroc c ur r e nc e s . O n F e brua r y 12, 2004, a f t e rbe i ng l a t e thr e e m or e t i m e s a nd a c c um ul a t i ng a t ot a l of 5. 5 oc c ur r e nc e s , he re ce i ved a se cond verbal w arni ng . O n M ar ch 23 , 20 04 , H ol l y r ec ei ved a w ri tt en w a r ni ng a f

t e rhe w a s l a t e one m or e t i m e a nd r e a c he d s i x oc c ur r e nc e s . O n A pr i l 14, 20 04 , he re ce i ved a se cond w ri tt en w arni ng af t erhe w as l at e tw o m ore t i m es , for a t ot al of se ven o cc urre nces . O n M ay 3, 20 04 , af t erH ol l y w as l at e f

ou r m ore t i m es a n d r e a c h e d n in e o c c u r r e n c e s , H o lly w a s a u to m a tic a lly te r m in a te d . A c c o r d in g to C l ai rs on ’ s r ec ords, H ol l y had been l at e at ot al of on e hou r a nd thi rt ee n m i nu t es ove re i ght e e n e pi s ode s . O n tw e l ve of thos e oc c a s i ons , H ol l y w a s t a r dy by onl y one m i nu t e. H e w as al so l at e by f i ve m i nu t es on tw o o cc as i on s, by si x m i nu t es on ce , a nd by f i f ty - thr e e m i nut e s onc e . A c c or di ng t o N i l s on, a f t e rH ol l y ’ s t e r m i na t i on, 10 th e m o ld s h o p w a s d o w n s iz e d b y a b o u t 5 0 % , o rb y a b o u t 1 4 e m p lo y e e s , d u e toHolly also brought a claim ag ainst Clairson for intentional infliction of emotional 11 dis tre ss, in v iol atio n o f F lorida c omm on law. Th edis tric t c ourt

gra nte d s umm ary

judgment to Clairson on this claim, too, but Holl y has not appe aled f

rom that dec ision. 16 la c k o f s a le s . C la ir s o n h a s n o t r e f ille d H o lly ’s p o s itio n . A f t e rr e c e i vi ng a N ot i c e of R i ghtt o S ue f

r om the E qua l E m pl oy m e nt O p p o rtu n i ty C o m m i ssi o n (“ E E O C ”), H o l l y co m m en ced th i s l aw su i tag ai n st C l a i r s on i n the C i r c ui tC our tof the F i f th J udi c i a l C i r c ui t , i n a nd f orM a r i on C o u n ty , F lo r id a , f

o rf a ilu r e to r e a s o n a b ly a c c o m m o d a te h is d is a b ility , le a d in g to hi s t e r m i na t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of the A m e r i c a ns w i th D i s a bi l i t i e s A c tof 1990, 42 U .S .C . § § 1 2 1 0 1 - 1 2 2 1 3 ( “A D A ” ) , a n d its F lo r id a a n a lo g , th e F lo r id a C iv il R ig h ts A c tof 1992, F l a . S t a t . § 760. 01 ( “ F C R A ” ) . C l a i r s on r e m ove d the c a s e t o the 11 U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the M i dd l e D i stri ctof F l ori da, and res po nd ed that H ol l y’ s f ai l ure- t o-ac com m od at e c l ai m s m ustfa i l because he i s nota “ qu al i fi ed in d iv id u a l” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e A D A a n d th e F C R A - - th a t is , o n e w h o , w ith o rw ith o u t a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n , c a n p e r f o r m th e e s s e n tia l f

u n c tio n s o f

h is po si t i on . C l ai rs on ar gu ed thatstri ctpu nctual i ty, pu rs uantt o i t s new att endance pol i c y , i s a n “ e s s e nt i a l f unc t i on” of

H ol l y ’ s j ob tha the c a nnotpe r f or m w i th or w i tho utan ac com m od at i on , and t hat , i n any ca se , H ol l y neverre qu es t ed an ac com m od at i on , and t here fore C l ai rs on ’ s obl i gat i on t o p rovi de on e w as never tr i gge r e d.17

T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d f i na l s um m a r y j udgm e ntt o C l a i r s on on both of H ol l y ’ s c l a i m s . T he c our tde t e r m i ne d tha ts tr i c tpunc tua l i ty , a s de f i ne d by C l a i r s on’ s pol i c y , w a s a n e s s e nt i a l f unc t i on of

H ol l y ’ s pos i t i on, a nd tha tno r e a s ona bl e a c c om m oda t i on w oul d e na bl e hi m t o pe r f or m tha tf

unc t i on. T he di stri ctcourtal so sua s po nt e hel d, i n the al t ernat i ve, thatH ol l y’ s c l ai m s f ai l ed be c a us e he di d notpr ovi de a ny e vi de nc e tha tC l a i r s on tr e a t e d hi m di f f e r e nt l y f r om non- di s a bl e d e m pl oy e e s . H ol l y t i m e l y appe a l e d. I I . D i s c u s s i on A s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o r r e c t l y o b s e r v e d , d i s a b i l i ty - d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms un der the F C R A ar e a nal yz ed usi ng the sa m e f ra m ew ork as A D A cl ai m s. S ee D ’A n g e lo v . C o n a g r a F o o d s , I n c ., 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 4 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e th e r e f o r e c o n s id e rb o th c la im s to g e th e r . S e e id . W e rev i ew d e n o v o a g ran to f su m m ary j u d g m en to n A D A cl ai m s, c ons trui ng the f

a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . L ow e v. A la . P o w e rC o ., 2 4 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . “S u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is pr ope ri f the pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a nd a f f i da vi t s s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctand t hatthe m ov i ng party i s e nt i t l ed t o j ud gm entas a m att er o f la w .” I d . U nde rthe c ontr ol l i ng l a w i n thi s C i r c ui t , “ [ t ] he bur de n- s hi f t i ng a na l y s i s of18

T itle V I I e m p lo y m e n t d is c r im in a tio n c la im s is ap p lic a b le to A D A c la im s .” E a r l, 207 F . 3d a t1365. T o e s t a bl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on unde rthe A D A , a pl a i nt i f

f m us ts how : ( 1) he i s di s a bl e d; ( 2) he i s a qua l i f i e d i ndi vi dua l ; a nd ( 3 ) h e w a s s u b

je c te d to u n la w f

u l d is c r im in a tio n b e c a u s e o f h is d is a b ility . I d . I t is u n d i s p u t e d th a tHo l l y i s d i s a b l e d wi th i n th e m e a n i n g o f th e AD A. T h e o th e rtwo p r o n g s , h o w e v e r , a r e c o n te s te d in th is ap p e a l.

A . P r o n g T w o : “Q u a lif ie d I n d iv id u a l” In o rd er t o m ak e o u tth e seco n d p ro n g o f h i s p ri m a faci e case, H o l l y m u st pr ove tha the i s a “ qua l i f i e d i ndi vi dua l ” - - tha ti s , s om e one w i th a di s a bi l i ty w ho,

“ w i th orw i thoutr e a s ona bl e a c c om m oda t i on, c a n pe r f or m the e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons of th e e m p lo y m e n t p o s itio n th a t s u c h in d iv id u a l h o ld s o rd e s ir e s .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 1 1 (8 ); see al so E arl , 2 0 7 F . 3 d at1 3 6 5 . “ A cco rd i n g l y, an A D A p l ai n t i ff m u st s how e i the rtha the c a n pe r f or m the e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons of

hi s j ob w i thout a c c om m oda t i on, or , f

a i l i ng tha t , . . . tha the c a n pe r f or m the e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons of hi s j ob w i th a r e a s ona bl e a c c om m oda t i on. ” D ’ A nge l o, 422 F . 3d a t1229 ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . A n a c c om m oda t i on i s “ r e a s ona bl e ” a nd ne c e s s a r y unde rthe A D A , i n tur n, onl y i f

i te na bl e s the e m pl oy e e t o pe r f or m the e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons of the j ob . L ucas v. W . W . G ra i ng er , Inc. , 25 7 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 59 -60 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ); L aC hance v. D uffy ’ s D ra ftH ou se , Inc. , 14 6 F . 3d 83 2, 83 5 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ); se e19

a ls o 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 3 0 .2 ( o ) ( 1 ) ( ii) ( “T h e te r m r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n m e a n s : . .

. M odi f i c a t i ons ora dj us tm e nt s t o the w or k e nvi r onm e nt , ort o the m a nne ror c i r c um s t a nc e s unde rw hi c h the pos i t i on he l d orde s i r e d i s c us t om a r i l y pe r f or m e d, thatenabl e aqu al i fi ed i nd i vi du al w i th a di sabi l i ty t o p er form the es se nt i al f u n c tio n s o f

th a t p o s itio n . . . .” ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ) . “I f th e in d iv id u a l is u n a b le to pe r f or m a n e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i on of

hi s j ob, e ve n w i th a n a c c om m oda t i on, he i s , by d e f in itio n , n o t a ‘q u a lif

ie d in d iv id u a l’ a n d , th e r e f o r e , n o t c o v e r e d u n d e rth e A D A . In ot her w ords, the A D A do es no tre qu i re the em pl oyert o el i m i nat e a n ess ent i al f unc t i on of

the pl a i nt i f

f’ s j ob. ” D ’ A nge l o, 422 F . 3d a t1229 ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) . O n th e o th e rh a n d , “th e A D A m a y r e q u ir e a n e m p lo y e rto re structure apart i cul arj ob by al t er i ng or el i m i nat i ng som e of i t s m ar gi nal funct i on s. ” L ucas , 25 7 F . 3d at12 60 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). H ol l y a r gue s tha tC l a i r s on f a i l e d t o a c c om m oda t e hi s di s a bi l i ty by not a l l o w i n g h i m t o o c c a s i o n a l l y c l o c k i n t o w o r k l a t e a n d ma k e u p a n y l o s tt i me d u r in g b r e a k s o ro v e r tim e , a s h e h a d b e e n a llo w e d to d o f o rf if te e n y e a r s p r io rto the i m pl em ent at i on of the new po l i cy . C l ai rs on re spon ds thatstri ctpu nctual i ty, as defi ned b y i t s pol i cy , i s a n ess ent i al funct i on of H ol l y’ s posi t i on as m ol d p ol i sher , a nd tha ta s s uc h, i ti s notr e qui r e d t o e l i m i na t e thi s c r i t i c a l f unc t i on. A s s um i ng ar gu endo thatthi s i s true ( and w e r eturn t o thi s c entra l qu es t i on bel ow ), i ti s c l ea r20

fr om the fa ctthatH ol l y vi ol at ed C l ai rs on ’ s pun ctual i ty pol i cy on se vera l o c c a s io n s , a n d in d e e d b y H o lly ’s o w n a d m is s io n , th a t h is d is a b ility p r e v e n ts h im fr om perf

orm i ng thi s f

un ct i on w i tho utan ac com m od at i on . Iti s a l so cl ea r that pe r m i tt i ng H ol l y t o oc c a s i ona l l y c l oc k i n l a t e a nd m a ke up l os tt i m e ove rbr e a ks an d aft er h o u rs w o u l d n o tal l o w h i m t o p erfo rm th e fu n ct i o n o f stri ctp u n ctu al i ty, a s de f i ne d by C l a i r s on’ s pol i c y , a c c or di ng t o w hi c h t a r di ne s s by m e r e s e c onds c ons t i tut e s a n i nf

r a c t i on w hi c h c a nnotbe m a de up, r e ga r dl e s s of the c a us e of

the ta r d in e s s . T h u s , a s s u m in g th a t s tr ic t p u n c tu a lity , a s d e f in e d b y C la ir s o n ’s n o - f

a u lt p o lic y , is a n e s s e n tia l f

u n c tio n o f

H o lly ’s p o s itio n , th e a c c o m m o d a tio n H o lly su g g est s w o u l d “ req u i re [C l ai rso n ] t o el i m i n at e an essen t i al fu n ct i o n o f [H o l l y’ s] jo b ,” s o m e th in g th e A D A d o e s n o t r e q u ir e C la ir s o n to d o . W e th e r e f o r e a g r e e w ith th e d istrict co u rt th at if strict p u n ctu ality is in d ee d an es se n ti al fu n ctio n o f H o ll y’s pos i t i on a s a m ol d pol i s he r , the n he c a nnotpe r f or m thi s f

unc t i on “ w i th orw i thout r e a s ona bl e a c c om m oda t i on, ” he i s the r e f or e nota “ qua l i f

i e d i ndi vi dua l ” unde rthe A D A , a n d h is c la im s u ltim a te ly m u s t f a il. H o w ev er, H o l l y arg u es th atstri ctp u n ctu al i ty -- cl o ck i n g i n atp reci sel y 7 a .m . e a c h m o r n in g - - is a m a r g in a l, n o t a n e s s e n tia l, f u n c tio n o f

h is p o s itio n . A

“ re as on abl e a cc om m od at i on ” m ay i ncl ud e “ partt i m e or m od i fi ed w ork schedul es . ” S t ew artv. H appy H erm an’ s C heshi re B ri dg e, Inc. , 11 7 F . 3d 12 78 , 12 85 (11t h C i r.21

19 97 ) ( qu ot i ng 42 U . S . C . § 1 21 11 (9)( B )) ; E E O C , E nforcement G ui dance: R e a s o n a b le A c c o m m o d a tio n a n d U n d u e H a r d s h ip U n d e rth e A m e r ic a n s w ith D i s a bi l i t i e s A c t , 2 E E O C C om pl . M a n. ( C C H ) , § 902, N o. 915. 002 ( O c t . 17, 2002) [ h e r e in a f te r“E E O C E n f

o r c e m e n t G u id a n c e ” ], Q u e s tio n 3 6 ( “P o s s ib le r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a t i o n s c o u l d i n c l u d e a d j u s tm e n t s t o s t a r t i n g t i m e s . . . . E x a m p l e : An e m pl oy e e w i th m a

j orde pr e s s i on i s of

t e n l a t e f orw or k be c a us e of

m e di c a t i on si de-e ff ec t s thatm ake hi m extre m el y grogg y i n the m orni ng . H i s s chedul ed ho urs a r e 9: 00 a . m . t o 5: 30 p. m . , buthe a r r i ve s a t9: 00, 9: 30, 10: 00, ore ve n 10: 30 on a ny g iv e n d a y . . . . [ I ]f

th is in d iv id u a l c a n [ p e r f o r m h is jo b r e s p o n s ib ilitie s ] b y r e g u la r ly w o r k in g a s c h e d u le o f

1 0 :0 0 a .m . to 6 :3 0 p .m ., ar e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n w o u ld be t o m odi f

y hi s s c he dul e s o tha the i s notr e qui r e d t o r e por tf orw or k unt i l 10: 00 a . m . ” ) . T hus , H ol l y a r gue s tha tr a the rtha n t e r m i na t i ng hi m , C l a i r s on c oul d ha ve r e a s ona bl y a c c om m oda t e d hi m s i m pl y by a l t e r i ng thi s m a r gi na l f unc t i on t o a l l ow h im o c c a s io n a lly to c lo c k in la te a n d m a k e u p th a t tim e d u r in g b r e a k s o ra f te rh is sh ift en d s, th e v er y c o u rs e o f c o n d u ct fo ll o w ed b y C lairso n fo r th e b u lko f H o ll y’s e m p lo y m e n t. I ti s by now c l e a rtha te s s e nt i a l f unc t i ons “ a r e the f

unda m e nt a l j ob dut i e s of a p o s itio n th a t a n in d iv id u a l w ith a d is a b ility is a c tu a lly r e q u ir e d to p e r f o r m .” E a r l, 207 F . 3d a t1365; s e e a l s o 29 C . F . R . § 1630. 2( n) ( 2) ( i ) . M or e ove r , “ c ons i de r a t i on22

shal l be gi ven t o the em pl oyer ’ s j ud gm entas t o w hatfunct i on s of aj ob ar e e s s e nt i a l , a nd i f

a n e m pl oy e rha s pr e pa r e d a w r i tt e n de s c r i pt i on be f or e a dve r t i s i ng or i nt ervi ew i ng appl i ca nt s f or the j ob , thi s des cr i pt i on shal l be consi dere d evi dence of the e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons of

the j ob. ” 42 U . S . C . § 12111( 8) ; s e e a l s o D ’ A nge l o, 422 F . 3d a t1230. A ppl y i ng thi s f a c t ort o the c a s e a tha nd, the di s tr i c tc our tf ound “a m p le e v id e n c e ” th a t p u n c tu a lity is a n e s s e n tia l f u n c tio n o f

H o lly ’s p o s itio n . O rderat16 . T he courtci t ed the exi st ence of the pu nctual i ty pol i cy i t se l f, C l a i r s on’ s r a t i ona l e f

orthe pol i c y , a s s t a t e d i n the ha ndbook - - tha tt a r dy e m pl oy e e s “ m a y de l a y a s s e m bl y ope r a t i ons a nd f or c e othe re m pl oy e e s t o s t a nd i dl e , ” a nd K i l ke l l y ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tt a r di ne s s a nd a tt e nda nc e w e r e c onc e r ns f orthe em pl oyer . Id. In re l yi ng al m ostexcl usi vel y on thi s e vi dence, the di stri ctcourt s tr e s s e d tha t“ i ti s w i thi n the e m pl oy e r ’ s di s c r e t i on t o de t e r m i ne w ha tj ob f unc t i ons a r e e s s e n tia l a n d it is b e y o n d d is p u te th a t C la ir s o n m a d e a tte n d a n c e a n d p u n c tu a lity es se nt i al funct i on s, bo th throu gh i t s di sc i pl i ne of em pl oyee s a nd cl ea rl y e st abl i shed p o lic ie s .” I d . a t 1 6 - 1 7 . H ow ever , w hen con si deri ng the em pl oyer ’ s j ud gm entre gardi ng w hati s a n es se nt i al funct i on , w e have previ ou sl y c on si dere d n oton l y the com pany’ s “ offi ci al pos i t i on, ” buta l s o t e s t i m ony f r om the pl a i nt i f

f’ s s upe r vi s or . S e e , e . g. , D ’ A nge l o, 422 F . 3d a t1230. H e r e , the tw o m e n w ho s upe r vi s e d H ol l y f orthe va s tm a

j or i ty ofClairson sought lea ve from the district court to file out of time an e xhibit of three 12 (v ir tually indistinguis ha

ble ) v e rs ion s o f t

hemol d p oli sh e r j ob de sc ripti on , which w ould constitute further

evidenc e of Clairson’ s judgment as to what func tions of Holly ’s job are essential. Thedistrict court denie d this mot ion as moot when it grante d Clairson’s motion for summa ry judgment, and

thee xhibit w a s n e ver o ff ic ially e ntere d into t

here c ord. Th is h a s n ot, however, stopped either

party from citingto these job descriptions i n their brief s before us. B e c a us ethi s evide nc eis n ot p art of there c ord b e low , w edo no t c on side r it here . At all events , as the pa rties’ c ompeting a

rguments sugg est, the job descriptions arguably cut both ways. On one hand, a s Clairson notes, one of the “ g eneral re quirements” of mold polis hers’ job is the “ability to arriveat work in a

timely manner and be at their workstation prior to the star ting of their shift.” On theother ha nd, as Holly

and the EEO C point out , this factor is listed under “g eneral re quirements” a

nd not under “ essential func tions,” which instead includeduties relate d to mold poli shing itself. N or is punctuality listed under “perfor

mancefac tors,” which instead includes “dependability” -- “the manner in which you apply yourself to your work, if

g ets [si c] work out on time, etc.”-- a nd “attenda

nce”-- the “ amount of time present at work.”No one argue s th at H olly

e ver n e g le c te d towo rk

at le a st a full w or k day , o r t

hat hee ver f

aile d tog e t hi s work out on time; in fact, his super visors praised his job performanc e, and Clairson c oncede s that aside from punctuality , Holly was a g ood employee. 23 hi s m any y ea rs atC l ai rs on , i ncl ud i ng hi s l as tye aror so du ri ng w hi ch the new pol i c y w a s i n e f

f e c t , e a c h t e s t i f

i e d tha tH ol l y ’ s j ob w a s nott i m e s e ns i t i ve , a nd, n o ta b ly , th a t p r e c is e p u n c tu a lity d id n ’t m a tte r . N ils o n s a id th a t “[ i]n th e M o ld S h o p D e p a r tm e n t a ta r d in e s s is s u e d id n o t a f f e c t h o w w o r k w a s d o n e , v e r s u s , a s it i s i n p rodu ct i on . M anufacturi ng i s r ea l l y s ensi t i ve w here m ol d b ui l di ng i s not . ” M i l l ersi m i l ar l y t es t i fi ed thatm ol d p ol i shi ng “ w as n’ tas t i m e s ensi t i ve as other ar ea s,” s o th at “i f s o m eb o d y s taye d late, as o p p o se d to co m in g in ea rly, itw o u ld n ’t r e a lly m a tte ra s lo n g a s th e w o r k w a s d o n e .” T h u s , w e th in k th e r e c o r d f a ir ly re fl ec t s agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa cton thi s f ac t or al on e. 12 M o reo v er, “ [w ] h eth er a fu n ct i o n i s essen t i al i s ev al u at ed o n a case-b y-case ba s i s by e xa m i ni ng a num be rof f a c t or s . ” D ’ A nge l o, 422 F . 3d a t1230 ( quot a t i on24

m a r k s o m itte d a n d e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; s e e a ls o 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 3 0 .2 ( n ) ( 3 ) ( i) (“ E vi dence of w hether apart i cul arfunct i on i s e ss ent i al i ncl ud es , bu ti s notl i m i t ed to : T h e e m p lo y e r ’s ju d g m e n t a s to w h ic h f u n c tio n s a r e e s s e n tia l . . . .” ( e m p h a s is ad d ed )) . T h u s, as w e o b se rv ed re ce n tl y in D ’A n g elo , alth o u g h “th e e m p lo ye r’s vi e w i s e nt i t l e d t o s ubs t a nt i a l w e i ghti n the c a l c ul us , ” thi s f a c t ora l one m a y notbe

“ concl usi ve[] . ” I d. at12 33 . Indeed, i f i tw er e c on si dere d t o b e c on cl usi ve, then an e m p lo y e rth a t d id n o t w is h to b e in c o n v e n ie n c e d b y m a k in g a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n c o u ld , s im p ly b y a s s e r tin g th a t th e f u n c tio n is “e s s e n tia l,” a v o id th e c le a rc o n g r e s s io n a l m a n d a te th a t e m p lo y e r s “m a k [ e ] r e a s o n a b le acco m m o d at i o n s t o th e k n o w n p h ysi cal o r m en t al l i m i t at i o n s o f an o th erw i se qu al i fi ed i nd i vi du al w i th a di sabi l i ty w ho i s a n app l i ca ntor em pl oyee , un l es s s uch c ove r e d e nt i ty c a n de m ons tr a t e tha tthe a c c om m oda t i on w oul d i m pos e a n undue h a r d s h ip o n th e o p e r a tio n o f th e b u s in e s s o f

s u c h c o v e r e d e n tity .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 12 11 2(b)(5)(A ). A cc ordi ng t o the E E O C ’ s r egul at i on s i m pl em ent i ng the A D A , other f ac t ors t o be c ons i de r e d i nc l ude : “ ( 1) the a m ountof t i m e s pe nton the j ob pe r f or m i ng the f unc t i on, ( 2) the c ons e que nc e s of notr e qui r i ng the i nc um be ntt o pe r f or m the funct i on , (3) the t erm s of the col l ec t i ve bargai ni ng agre em ent , (4) the w ork e xpe r i e nc e of

pa s ti nc um be nt s i n the j ob, a nd ( 5) the c ur r e ntw or k e xpe r i e nc e of25

i nc um be nt s i n s i m i l a rj obs . ” D ’ A nge l o, 422 F . 3d a t1230 ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) ( c i t i ng 29 C . F . R . § 1630. 2( n) ( 3) ) ; s e e a l s o D a vi s v. F l a . P ow e r& L i ght C o . , 2 0 5 F . 3 d 1 3 0 1 , 1 3 0 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( s a m e ) . I n a d d i t i o n , th e E E OC r e gul a t i ons i de nt i f

y thr e e none xc l us i ve ba s e s on w hi c h a j ob f unc t i on m a y be de e m e d e s s e nt i a l : “ ( 1) the r e a s on the pos i t i on e xi s t s i s t o pe r f or m the f unc t i on; ( 2) there ar e al i m i t ed nu m ber of e m pl oyee s a vai l abl e a m on g w ho m the performance o f th e j o b fu n ct i o n can b e d i stri b u t ed ; an d (3 ) th e fu n ct i o n i s h i g h l y sp eci al i zed so th a t th e in c u m b e n t in th e p o s itio n w a s h ir e d f o rh is o rh e re x p e r tis e o ra b ility to pe r f or m the pa r t i c ul a rf

unc t i on. ” D ’ A nge l o, 422 F . 3d a t1230 ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt ed) ( ci t i ng § 1 63 0. 2(n)(2)). S ever al of these fa ct ors have l i tt l e or no b ea ri ng on thi s c as e. T he re cord c ont a i ns no i nf

or m a t i on, f

ori ns t a nc e , r e ga r di ng the t e r m s of a ny c ol l e c t i ve bargai ni ng agre em ent , or the w ork exp er i ence of curr entand p as tm ol d p ol i sher s (other than t he t es t i m on y of M i l l erand N i l son, bo th form erm ol d p ol i sher s, that thi s j ob i s nott i m e - s e ns i t i ve ) . A f e w othe rf

a c t or s appl y t o s om e e xt e ntt o the si tuat i on athand bu tar e notvery i l l um i nat i ng . T hu s, for i nst ance , m ol d p ol i sher s s pe nd ve r y l i tt l e t i m e on the j ob pe r f or m i ng the f

unc t i on of

s tr i c tpunc tua l i ty , the r e a s on the pos i t i on of

m ol d pol i s he re xi s t s i s c e r t a i nl y nott o pe r f or m the f unc t i on of be i ng punc tua l , a nd H ol l y w a s nothi r e d f orhi s e xpe r t i s e i n pe r f

or m i ng the26

hi gh l y s peci al i ze d fun ct i on of pu nctual i ty. O n the ot her hand, t o the ext entthat s tr i c tpunc tua l i ty i s i m por t a nt , one pol i s he r ’ s duty t o be punc tua l c a nnotbe r e d is tr ib u te d to a n o th e rp o lis h e r . F a rm or e i l l um i na t i ng i n thi s c a s e i s a c ons i de r a t i on of the c ons e que nc e s of n o t r e q u ir in g H o lly to p e r f o r m th e f u n c tio n o f

s tr ic t p u n c tu a lity . A c c o r d in g to C l ai rso n , th ese co n seq u en ces w o u l d b e d i re. “ T h e reaso n th atem p l o yee t ard i n ess is su ch an issu e a t C lairso n ,” itsa ys , “ is th at tard y e m p lo ye es ca n d elay C lairso n ’s a s s e m bl y ope r a t i ons a nd f or c e othe re m pl oy e e s t o s t a nd i dl e unt i l the t a r dy em pl oyee ’ s port i on of the prod uctas se m bl y c an be com pl et ed. ” C l ai rs on sa ys that thi s r ea soni ng ho l ds equal l y true f or the po si t i on of m ol d p ol i sher , and t hat punc tua l i ty i s a n e s s e nt i a l f unc t i on of

H ol l y ’ s pos i t i on “ be c a us e [ H ol l y ] i s one of m any e m pl oyee s i nv ol ved i n ass em bl i ng prod uct s f or C l ai rs on . A s H ol l y s t at ed hi m s e l f i n hi s de pos i t i on, ‘ s om e j obs t a ke 80 hour s t o c om pl e t e a nd a nothe rj ob m i gh tt ake 10 m i nu t es . ’ C on se qu ent l y, t ar di ness ca n sl ow prod uctas se m bl y. ” M em o . o f L aw i n S u p p o rto f M tn . fo r S u m . J. at8 ; see al so i d . at9 (“ [C l ai rso n ’ s] m a n u f a c tu r in g b u s in e s s r e q u ir e s its e m p lo y e e s to w o r k to g e th e rto a s s e m b le pr oduc t s a nd punc tua l i ty i s the r e f or e e s s e nt i a l . ” ) . T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d, a nd f o u n d th a t “H o lly w o r k e d o n th e a s s e m b ly lin e , p o lis h in g th e s te e l to o lin g a f te rit w as form ed fr om the m ol ds. ” O rderat2. T hi s r ec ord, ho w ever , i s notso cl ea r.27

A s a thr e s hol d m a tt e r , the r e c or d doe s nots ugge s ttha tH ol l y “ w or ke d on the as se m bl y l i ne. ” T o the cont ra ry , the re cord i nd i ca t es thatthe m ol d sho p w here pol i s he r s w or k i s a c tua l l y s e pa r a t e f r om the a s s e m bl y l i ne w hi c h w a s i n a di f f e r e nt r o o m o f th e w a r e h o u s e , a n d th a tH o l l y a n d o th e r s p o l i s h th e mo l d s a f t e rth e y c o me of f of the a s s e m bl y l i ne . M i l l e rt e s t i f i e d, f ore xa m pl e , tha tH ol l y “ pol i s he d the s te e l to o lin g a f

te rw e w e r e f

in is h e d m a c h in in g it” ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . E v e n K ilk e lly t es t i fi ed thatas m ol d p ol i sher , H ol l y “ w ou l d si tata t abl e a nd the st ee l m ol ds that c om e of f of the - - f r om a nothe ra r e a , m ol d m a ke r , the s t e e l m us tbe pol i s he d” (e m ph as i s a dd ed). N or i s there any r ec ord evi dence thatm ol d p ol i sher s a re req u i red t o “ w o rk t o g eth er [w i th o th er em p l o yees] t o assem b l e p ro d u ct s. ” T h ati s, th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t o th e rm o ld p o lis h e r s w o u ld n e e d to w a it f o rH o lly to a r r i ve i n or de rt o c om pl e t e the i row n m ol d pol i s hi ng. N ori s the r e a ny e vi de nc e of a ny pos t - pol i s hi ng s t a ge of m a nuf a c tur i ng, s uc h tha te m pl oy e e s i n tha tde pa r tm e nt wo u l d h a v e th e i rwo r k d e l a y e d b y th e t a r d i n e s s o f a m o l d p o l i s h e r . C f

. E E OC E n fo rc em en t G u id an ce , Q u es ti o n 4 3 (“If th e r es u lto f m o d ifyin g o n e e m p lo ye e’s w or k hour s . . . i s t o pr e ve ntothe re m pl oy e e s f r om doi ng the i rj obs , the n the s i gni f i c a ntdi s rupt i on t o the ope r a t i ons of the e m pl oy e rc ons t i tut e s a n undue ha r ds hi p. ” ) . I ns t e a d, the be s ti nf e r e nc e w e c a n dr a w f

r om thi s r e c or d i n f

a vorof the pl ai nt i ff

-- w hi ch w e m ustdo gi ven t he procedural po sture i n w hi ch w e r evi ewThereis some rec ord evidence that as Holly ’s ca reer adva nced, on his own initiative 13 an d wh e nth e r ew a s n o p o l i s h i n gt o b ed o n e , h eo c c a s i o n al l y t o o k o na d di t i o n ald

ut i e s . In Miller’s words, Holly

“ac tually beca me almost a hands- on mold maker for us. He ra

n machiner

y just li ke the other

fellows when therewas no polishing to bedone.” Nilson sim ilarly testified that “as Tommy ’s ca

reer adva nced, healso lear

ned to run other

equipment in the shop, so he wa s multit asking .” It is unclear f rom this testim ony

whether this work involved Holly beingon the assembly line. However, even assuming a rguendo that it did, the rec ord sug g ests that this work wa s b oth oc c a sio nal and

so me thingHo lly

vo lunte e re d todo on

hisown initi ativ e . B ut t

his occa sional assembly

line work c an hardly

be said to be a

n essential func tion of Holly ’s job as mold polis her. 28 i t- - i s tha tm ol d pol i s hi ng, a s M i l l e ra nd N i l s on e xpl a i ne d, i s a f a i r l y s ol i t a r y , nont i m e - s e ns i t i ve a c t i vi ty . T hus , w ha t e ve rm a y be s a i d of C l a i r s on e m pl oy e e s w ho w o r k o n th e a s s e m b ly lin e , th e r e is p r e c io u s little in th is r e c o r d to s u p p o r t th e c la im th a t a m o ld p o lis h e r ’s o c c a s io n a l ta r d in e s s - - u s u a lly b y o n ly o n e m in u te - - c o u ld “d e la y C la ir s o n ’s a s s e m b ly o p e r a tio n s a n d f o r c e o th e re m p lo y e e s to s ta n d id le u n til [h is] p o rtio n o f th e p ro d u ct as se m b ly ca n b e c o m p leted ,” o r th at a m o ld p o li sh er ’s “ta r d in e s s c a n s lo w p r o d u c t a s s e m b ly .” 13 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e a r g u m e n t th a t H o lly ’s w o r k a s a m o ld p o lis h e rw a s n o t tim e s e n s itiv e , b u t r e je c te d it: T he f a c ttha thi s pol i s hi ng pr oj e c t s , by the m s e l ve s , w e r e not nece ss ar i l y per form ed un der s tri ctdeadl i nes does notm ea n th at a t t e n d a n c e a n d p u n c tu a lity w e r e n o t e s s e n tia l f u n c tio n s . A s H o lly h i m sel f t est i fi ed , so m e o f h is p o l i sh i n g j o b s w o u l d t ak e sev eral h o u rs, ore ve n s e ve r a l da y s . B y nota r r i vi ng t o w or k on t i m e , he w a s s l ow i ng d o w n hi s pr oduc t i on, i nc r e a s i ng ove r he a d, a nd pot e nt i a l l y i nc r e a s i ng o v ert i m e co st s. Id . at 1 6 . B u t th er e is n o d iscu ss io n w h atso ev erin th is re co rd o f C lairso n ’s29

o v e r h e a d c o s ts u n d e ra n y c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a n d w e c a n f in d n o r e c o r d e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t th e c o u r t’s f

in d in g o f in c r e a s e d o v e r h e a d . I n d e e d , it is p a r tic u la r ly d i ffi cu l tt o i m ag i n e an actu al i n crease in o v erh ead co st s d u e t o H o l l y’ s t ard i n ess s i nc e the va s tm a

j or i ty of the t i m e he w a s l a t e by onl y one m i nut e , a nd the a c c o m m o d a tio n h e w a s p e r m itte d f o rs o m e f

if te e n y e a r s , a n d w h ic h h e s e e k s a g a in no w , i nv ol ves hi s m aki ng up any l ostt i m e the sa m e busi ness day. S i m i l ar l y, there i s no r e c or d e vi de nc e tha tH ol l y w a s pa i d ove r t i m e i n the pa s tw he n he m a de up l ostt i m e duri ng hi s bre aks of a ft erhi s s hi ft , no r has he re qu es t ed ov ert i m e pay as p arto f th e acco m m o d at i o n h e cu rren t l y seek s. I n s um , a l though C l a i r s on m a ke s the ba r e a s s e r t i on tha ts tr i c tpunc tua l i ty by m ol d p ol i sher s i s i m po rt anti n o rdert o k ee p p rodu ct i on m ov i ng , the re cord c o n ta in s v ir tu a lly n o e v id e n c e th a t H o lly n e e d e d to w o r k w ith o th e r s to c o m p le te hi s w or k, tha thi s t a r di ne s s e ve rc a us e d pr oduc t i on t o s l ow dow n orc a us e d a ny o th e rd e tr im e n t to C la ir s o n , o rth a t h e e v e rf a ile d to c o m p le te h is m o ld s o n tim e . T o the cont ra ry , H ol l y’ s s up ervi sors , form erm ol d p ol i sher s them se l ves, t es t i fi ed th atH o l l y’ s w o rk w as n o tt i m e-sen si t i v e, th ath e w as ab l e t o m ak e u p h i s l at en ess the sa m e day w i tho uti m pact i ng bu si ness , and t hathe w as a val uabl e e m pl oyee th e y f o u g h t to r e ta in . T he s e f a c t or s di s t i ngui s h thi s c a s e f r om E a r l , r e l i e d on by C l a i r s on a nd theT h edi s tri c tc o urtw a s tro u b l e d b y an o th e r

a s p e c to f th es e c o n d

p ro n g- - n am e l y, 14 whether Holly timely asked Clairson f

or a reasona

ble ac commodation. The c ourt found that Holly had not aske d for a

n acc ommodation prior to liti g ation, and questioned whether it was a p p ro p ri at et o c o n s i d e r

th ea c c o mm o d at i o nH o l l y p ro p o s e d o n l y d uri n gl i t i g at i o n- - n am e l y, “some leniency

of the tardiness policy

in his specific c ase, w ith of coursethe expectation that Mr. Holly would make up said time during e ither his brea k period or a fter nor

mal work hours,” see Plnff’ s Br . in Opp’n to Def ’s Mtn. for Sum. J . at 10. We have not determined whether a plaintiff must ask for a

n acc ommodation prior to liti g ation. See, e.g ., Wil lis v. Conopco, Inc., 10 8 F .3 d 2 82 , 2 87 (1 1th

Cir . 1 99 7) (p e r curiam) (“ Whate ver m ay besaid o f [a

plaintif f’ s] 30 d is tr ic t c o u r t, w h e r e w e h e ld , a f te rc o n s id e r in g n o t o n ly th e e m p lo y e r ’s “e m p h a s is o n th e im p o r ta n c e o f

p u n c tu a lity ,” b u t a ls o “th e im p o r ta n c e o f [ h e r ] tim e ly pres ence ather j ob ” a s s t ore a re a c oo rdi nat or, thatpu nctual i ty w as i nd ee d an es se n ti al fu n ctio n o f th e p lain ti ff’s p o siti o n . 2 0 7 F .3 d at 1 3 6 6 . U n li k e H o ll y’s po si t i on of m ol d p ol i sher , the st ore a re a c oo rdi nat or w as shou l dere d w i th the t i m es e ns i t i ve duty of

pr e pa r i ng he ra r e a of

the s t or e f

orc us t om e r s e a c h m or ni ng. I f the pl a i nt i f f w e r e t a r dy f

orhe rm or ni ng s hi f

t , the n he ra r e a w oul d notbe r e a dy f orthe u s u a l in f lu x o f m o r n in g c u s to m e r s , a n d if s h e w e r e ta r d y f

o ra la te rs h if

t, e m pl oy e e s w or ki ng the s hi f tbe f or e he r s w oul d be f

or c e d t o w or k ove r t i m e w a i t i ng f orhe rt o a r r i ve . S e e i d. A s a r e s ul t , the m os ttha tc a n be s a i d f orC l a i r s on’ s pos i t i on i s tha ta ge nui ne di s put e of

m a t e r i a l f

a c te xi s t s r e ga r di ng w he the rpunc tua l i ty a s de f i ne d by C l a i r s on’ s pol i c y i s a n e s s e nt i a l e l e m e ntof H ol l y ’ s j ob, a nd i tw a s thus e r r orf or the di stri ctcourtt o h ave t aken thi s i ss ue aw ay fr om the fa ct -f i nd erand aw ar ded s um m a r y j udgm e ntt o C l a i r s on. 14‘burden’ as a n employee in the da

y-to-day workplac e seeking a

n acc ommodation for her condition, Plainti ff - - as a litigant bring ing a

n ADA action -- ha s failed to produc e evidence (af ter the c ompletion of discovery ) of the e x istence of

any ‘ac commodation’ at all, ‘rea sonable’ or otherwise.”); Ga ston v. Bellingrath Ga rdens &Home, Inc., 167 F .3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 19 99 ) (per curiam) (re a ff

ir mingtherulethat “ theduty to p ro videa

re a so na blea c c omm odatio n is not trigg ere d unless a spec ific dema nd for a n acc ommodation has been made” wheretherewas no indication that the plaintiff had ever requeste d an ac commodation, whether before or a fter the commencement of litigation); see also Jovanovic v. In-Sink-Erator Div. of Emer son Elec. Co., 201 F.3d 894, 899 ( 7th Cir. 2000) (same) . Nor have wedeter mined prec isely

what for m the reque st must t ake. B ut the district court did not rest its grant of summary judgment for Clairson on this ground, a

nd we de cline to re solve this fact-intensivequestion in the first instance on appeal. Thereis, however , considera ble irony in Clairson’s complaint that Holly never reque sted an ac c omm od atio n when Cl air so n’ s n o- fa ult po lic y sp e c if ic ally prov ide s th at e mpl oye e s “wi th Am e ri c an D isa

bil ity Ac t si tuatio ns areno t e xemp t f ro m th is p oli c y ,”and

thu s th at th eon ly

tim e that evidenc e of a

medical c ondition, such as a physician’s note, is appropriate is when an e mp lo ye ew is h e s toa

p p ly f o r a me dic al l e av ef

ro m w o r k o f f iv eo r mo rec o n s e c utiv ed ays . We note, also, that despite the a rguable f utility of doingso, Holly

immediately

approached his dire ct supervisor upon lea

rningof the new policy . Acc ordingto Mill er, H olly “said to me that you know, ‘It’s g oing to beextremely difficult for meto do this with my problems that I

have.’ ” See EEOC Enforc ement Guidanc e, Que stion 1 (“An employee te lls her supervisor, ‘ I ’m having trouble g etting to wor

k at my schedule d startingtime beca use of medic al treatments I ’m underg oing.’ This is a reque st for a reasona ble ac commodation.”); Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp., 154 F.3d 685, 694 ( 7th Cir. 1998) (“A request a s straightforwa rd as a sking f

or continued employ ment is a sufficient reque st for ac commodation.”). 31 B . P r ong T hr e e : “ S ubj e c t e d t o U nl a w f ul D i s c r i m i na t i on” A l tho ug h C l ai rs on di d n otcl ai m thatH ol l y f ai l ed t o m ake outthe thi rd pr ong of hi s pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e - - tha the w a s s ubj e c t e d t o unl a w f ul di s c r i m i na t i on because of hi s di sabi l i ty - - the di stri ctcourtsua s po nt e hel d, i n the al t ernat i ve, that s um m a r y j udgm e ntf

orC l a i r s on w a s w a r r a nt e d be c a us e “ H ol l y ha s noti de nt i f i e d a si ng l e c om para t or or pu tforth a si ng l e s hred of evi dence thathe w as tre at ed di ff er ent l y f rom any non -di sabl ed em pl oyee w ho vi ol at ed C l ai rs on ’ s a tt endance p o lic y .” O r d e ra t 2 1 - 2 2 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s im p lic a tio n th a t H o lly w a s r e q u ir e d toInd e e d, c ouns e l f or Clair so n c on c e de d a s muc h at oral argument. 15 32 pr ove di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e ntr e f l e c t s , w e be l i e ve , a m i s unde r s t a ndi ng of the f u n d a m e n t a l n a tu r e o f

a r e a s o n a b l e a c c o m m o d a t i o n c l a i m u n d e rth e AD A. 15 U nd erthe A D A , an em pl oyerm ay no tdi sc ri m i nat e a gai nst“ a qual i fi ed in d iv id u a l w ith a d is a b ility b e c a u s e o f th e d is a b ility o f

s u c h in d iv id u a l in r e g a r d to

. . . di sc harge of emp l oyee s. ” 42 U . S . C . § 1 21 12 (a ); se e a l so E ar l , 20 7 F . 3d at 1 3 6 5 . “[ T ]h e te r m ‘d is c r im in a te ’ in c lu d e s . . . n o t m a k in g r e a s o n a b le ac com m od at i on s t o the kn ow n p hysi ca l . . . l i m i t at i on s of a n o therw i se qu al i fi ed i nd i vi du al w i th a di sabi l i ty w ho i s a n . . . em pl oyee , un l es s s uch cov er ed ent i ty c an de m ons tr a t e tha tthe a c c om m oda t i on w oul d i m pos e a n undue ha r ds hi p on the o p er atio n o f th e b u sin es s . . . .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 1 2 (b )( 5 )( A ). T h u s, an em p lo ye r’s fa i l ure t o rea sonabl y a cc om m od at e adi sabl ed i nd i vi du al i t se l f c on st i tut es d is c r im in a tio n u n d e rth e A D A , s o lo n g a s th a t in d iv id u a l is “o th e r w is e q u a lif ie d ,” and u nl es s the em pl oyerca n sho w un du e har dshi p. T here i s no add i t i on al bu rden on H ol l y t o sho w thatC l ai rs on enforce d i t s pun ctual i ty pol i cy i n a di sc ri m i nat ory m anner by grant i ng l eni ency un der the po l i cy t o H ol l y’ s non -di sabl ed co-w orkers w h ile d e n y in g H o lly th e s a m e le n ie n c y , n o ra n y s u b s e q u e n t b u r d e n s o n C la ir s o n to sh o w th ati th ad “ an y l eg i t i m at e n o n -d i scri m i n at o ry reaso n s fo r t erm i n at i n g H o l l y” oron H ol l y t o “ e s t a bl i s h tha tthe s e r e a s ons w e r e pr e t e xtua l . ” O r de ra t22- 23Ho lly argue s th at un der U S Airw ays, Inc . v . B arn e tt, 53 5 U .S. 39 1 ( 20 02 ), heis o nly 16 require d to show that his proposed ac commodation is reasona ble “on its fac e, i.e. , ordinarily or in the run of c ases,”after which Clairson “must show special (ty pically case -spec ific) circumstances that demonstrate undue ha rdship in the particula

r circumstances,”id. at 401-02, and that the district cour

t require d him to show more than this. W e havepreviously held that “ theAD A doe s n ot re quire[thee mpl oye r] t o e lim inatean e ssenti al f un c tio n o f [theplaintif

f' s] job.” Davis, 205 F .3d at 1305. In other words, an ac commodation that does not ena ble the employee to perfor

m an essential f

unction of his position i s fac ially unrea sonable a

nd is not re quire d b y

theAD A. B arn e tt did n othingto alter t hisrule . Ind e e d, theSup remeCourt in Ba rnett cited a

pproving ly

Reed v. L ePag e B akeries, Inc., 244 F .3d 254 (1st Cir. 2001), which he ld t hat “ [i]n o rde r to p ro ve‘re a so na blea c c omm odatio n, ’ a

plaintif f n e e ds to s ho w n ot o nly that the proposed accommodation would ena ble her to perfor m the essential func tions of her job, but also that, at least on the f aceof thing s, it is feasible for theemployer under the circumstances.”I d. at 259 (emphasis added) ; see also D’Ang elo, 422 F.3d at 1229 (aff irming the Davis rulein a post-B arnett case) . In this case, the district c ourt conc luded that Holly ’s prop os e d ac c omm od atio n w ould ind e e d n ot ena blehim to p e rf or m th ee ssenti al f

un c tio ns of

his job. Although the g enuine issues of material fact re g ardingwhether strict punctuality

is an essential func tion of Holly ’s position made the cour t’s awa rd of summary

judgment to Cl airson improper, the district c ourt did not err in holdingthat an ADAplaintiff in a failure-toa c c omm odatec laim b e arstheinitial bu rde n o f s ho wingthat hi s p ropo se d ac c ommodatio n w ould enablehim to perform the e ssential functions of his job. And bec ause thedistrict court held that Holly had not met this init ial burden, there w as no re ason for the cour t to have re quired Clairson to s ho w und

ueha rd sh ip u nd e r t hec irc ums tanc e s.

33 n. 54. 16 P uta nothe rw a y , C l a i r s on i s noti ns ul a t e d f r om l i a bi l i ty unde rthe A D A by tre at i ng i t s non -di sabl ed em pl oyee s e xact l y the sa m e a s i t s di sabl ed em pl oyee s. In r a c e a nd s e x e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on c a s e s , di s c r i m i na t i on i s us ua l l y pr ove d by s how i ng tha te m pl oy e r s tr e a ts i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d e m pl oy e e s di f f e r e nt l y be c a us e of th e irr a c e o rs e x . H o w e v e r , th e v e r y p u rp o s e o f r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n la w s is t o requi re em pl oyer s t o tre atdi sabl ed i nd i vi du al s di ff er ent l y i n som e c i rc um st ance s

-- nam el y, w hen d i ff

er enttre atm entw ou l d al l ow a di sabl ed i nd i vi du al t o p er form the e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons of

hi s pos i t i on by a c c om m oda t i ng hi s di s a bi l i ty w i thout34

pos i ng a n undue ha r ds hi p on the e m pl oy e r . A l l ow i ng uni f or m l y - appl i e d, d is a b ility - n e u tr a l p o lic ie s to tru m p th e A D A r e q u ir e m e n t o f r e a s o n a b le a c c o mmo d a t i o n s w o u l d u tt e r l y e v i s c e r a t e th a tA D A r e q u i r e me n t . A s th e Su p r e me C our tha s e xpl a i ne d: [P ]ref er en ce s w il l so m etim es p ro v e n ec es sa r y to ac h iev e th e A ct’s ba s i c e qua l oppor tuni ty goa l . T he A c tr e qui r e s pr e f e r e nc e s i n the f o r m o f “r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n s ” th a t a r e n e e d e d f o rth o s e w ith d i sab i l i t i es t o o b t ai n th e sam e w o rk p l ace o p p o rtu n ities th atth o se w i tho utdi sabi l i t i es au t om at i ca l l y e nj oy. B y def i ni t i on any s peci al “ a c c om m oda t i on” r e qui r e s the e m pl oy e r t o tr e a ta n e m pl oy e e w i th a di s a bi l i ty di f

f e r en t l y , i . e . , pr e f

e r e nt i a l l y . A nd the f a c ttha tthe d if f e r e n c e in tr e a tm e n t v io la te s a n e m p lo y e r ’s d is a b ility - n e u tr a l ru le can n o tby i t se l f pl ac e the ac com m od at i on beyond the A ct ’ s pot ent i al r e a c h. W e r e th a t n o t s o , t h e “r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n ” p r o v is io n c o u ld nota c c om pl i s h i t s i nt e nde d obj e c t i ve . . . . N e utr a l “ br e a k- f r om - w or k” rul es[, fori ns t a nc e , ] w oul d a ut om a t i c a l l y pr e ve ntthe a c c om m oda t i on o f a n i n d iv id u a l w h o n e e d s a d d itio n a l b r e a k s f r o m w o r k , p e r h ap s to p erm i tm ed i cal v i si t s. U S A irw a y s , I n c . v . B a r n e tt, 5 3 5 U .S . 3 9 1 , 3 9 7 - 9 8 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ; s e e a ls o G a r c ia - A y a la v. L eder l e P ar ent er al s, Inc. , 21 2 F . 3d 63 8, 64 7-48 (1stC i r. 20 00 ) ( re vers i ng di stri ct c our t ’ s hol di ng tha ta c c om m oda t i ng pl a i nt i f f by pe r m i tt i ng he rm e di c a l l e a ve be y ond tha ta l l ow e d unde rthe c om pa ny ’ s ow n pol i c y i s pe rs e unr e a s ona bl e , a nd r e qui r i ng a n “ i ndi vi dua l i z e d a s s e s s m e nt ” of pl a i nt i f f’ s ne e d) ; E E O C E nf

or c e m e nt G u id a n c e , Q u e s tio n 1 7 ( “I f a n e m p lo y e e w ith a d is a b ility n e e d s a d d itio n a l u n p a id le a v e a s a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n , th e e m p lo y e rm u s t m o d if y its ‘n o - f

a u lt’Th is interp retatio n o f t he“ su bje c te d toun lawf

ul discrimin atio n b e c a

us eof his 17 dis a bil ity”pron gof

theplaintif

f’ s p rima fac iec a sein t

hec onte xt of

a failure -to- a c c omm odate claim does not render it void of content. In addition to requiringthe plaintiff to show that he w as “un lawf ully dis c rimin ate d ag ains t”-- that is , th at hi s empl oye r f aile d tore a so na

bly a c c omm odatehisdis a

bil ity, le a dingto a

n adv e rs ee mpl oy

ment de c isi on

-- theplaintif

f m us t sh owthat th is disc rimin atio n o c c ur re d “be c a us eof hisdis a bil ity”-- that is , th at th ea dv e rs e employ ment decision wa s cause d by his disability . In this case, f or instance , Holly

bear s the burden of showingnot only

that Clairson failed to re asonably acc ommodate his disability , but that, but for Clairson’s failure to ac commodate his disability , he would not havebeen terminated -- in other words, Holly

must show that his di sability cause d him to be late, so that Clairson’s failureto g ivehim

any le e wa y in its pun c tuality

po licy , le a dingto his t e rminatio n, amou nte d to termination “be causeof his disability .” 35 l e a ve pol i c y t o pr ovi de the e m pl oy e e w i th the a ddi t i ona l l e a ve , unl e s s i tc a n s how th a t: ( 1 ) th e r e is a n o th e re f f e c tiv e a c c o m m o d a tio n th a t w o u ld e n a b le th e p e r s o n to pe r f or m the e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons of

hi s /he rpos i t i on, or( 2) gr a nt i ng a ddi t i ona l l e a ve w oul d c a us e a n undue ha r ds hi p. M odi f y i ng w or kpl a c e pol i c i e s , i nc l udi ng l e a ve p o l i c i e s , i s a f

o r m o f r e a s o n a b l e a c c o m m o d a t i o n . ” ) ; i d . , Qu e s t i o n 2 2 ( “ An em p l o yer m u stp ro v i d e a m o d i fi ed o r p art -t i m e sch ed u l e w h en req u i red as a re as on abl e a cc om m od at i on , abse ntun du e har dshi p, even i f i tdo es no tprov i de such sc hedu l es for other e m pl oyee s. ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . In sum , the fa ctthatH ol l y’ s non -di sabl ed co-w orkers w er e e qu al l y s ubj ec t ed t o C l a i r s on’ s punc tua l i ty pol i c y i s notr e l e va ntt o the que s t i on w he the rC l a i r s on d i scri m i n at ed ag ai n stH o l l y b y fai l i n g t o reaso n ab l y acco m m o d at e h i s d i sab i l i ty, and i tw as error f

or the di stri ctcourtt o h ol d o therw i se . 1736 I I I . C on c l u s i on B ec ause there pl ai nl y a re genu i ne i ss ues of m at er i al fa ctconcerni ng w hether H ol l y i s a qua l i f

i e d i ndi vi dua l w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the A D A , the e ntr y of sum m ary j ud gm entfor C l ai rs on on thi s i ss ue w as i m prop er . M oreover, i tw as e r r orf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o gr a nts um m a r y j udgm e ntf orC l a i r s on on the a lte r n a tiv e g r o u n d th a t H o lly f a ile d to p r o v id e e v id e n c e o f d is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t. W e the r e f or e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our tf orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt w i th thi s opi ni on. RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.