FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 05, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16411 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 1 5 2 9 - C V- OR L - 2 8 - J GG K A T H L E E N W A R R E N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s V O L U S I A C O U N T Y , F L O R I D A , 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 5, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K a thl e e n W a r r e n a ppe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof j udgm e nta s a m a t t e rofThe County did not move for summary judgment. Prior to trial, the co urt i nstructed the 1 p art i e s t o b ri e f

wh e th e r W ar r e nw a s a d i s a b l e d i n d i v i d u a lan d wh e th e r h e r c l a i m s w e r e t i m e l y . In response , Warren a

rgued that h er physicians had submitted repor ts recommendingthat she be rea ssigne d to cleric al or sedentary positions because her injury prevented her from re turningto her form er position, and that the County failed to e ng ag e in an interactive process to determine a re a so na blea c c omm od atio n. Th eCounty dis pute d th at th ephy sician’ s repor t w a s su ff

ic ie nt t o reque st acc ommodation. In response , Warr en as serted that her re quest for reassignment was sufficie nt to trigg er theCounty ’s re sponsibili ty to eng ag e in an interactive process. 2 l a w i n he re m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on, br oughtpur s ua ntt o 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 t( “ A D A ” ) , 42 U . S . C . § 12111. A f t e ra thor ough r e vi e w of the r e c o r d , w e a f

f i r m. W a r r e n f i l e d a c om pl a i nta ga i ns tV ol us i a C ounty ( the “ C ounty ” ) , a l l e gi ng th a t s h e w a s a q u a lif

ie d in d iv id u a l w h o w a s d is a b le d a n d th a t th e C o u n ty f a ile d to p r o v id e a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n u n d e rth e A D A , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 1 1 . In i t s a nsw ert o t he com pl ai nt , the C ou nt y a verr ed, i nt eral i a, thatW arre n ne ve rr e que s t e d a r e a s ona bl e a c c om m oda t i on. 1 A cco rd i n g t o th e ev i d en ce attri al , W arren w o rk ed fo r th e C o u n ty as a corr ec t i on s off

i ce r f rom 19 89 un t i l 19 93 , w hen she w as i nj ured i n a w ork-re l at ed i n ci d en t . W h en sh e b eg an h er em p l o ym en t , sh e su ffered fro m rh eu m at o i d arth ri t i s, w hi c h w a s e xa c e rba t e d by thi s i nj ur y . S he r e c e i ve d tr e a t m e ntw i th D r s . M a r t i n a nd M athew s. In a c hartno t e dat ed N ov em ber 24, 19 93 , D r. M ar t i n i nd i ca t ed that W a r r e n s h o u ld b e r e tr a in e d in s o m e ty p e o f lig h te rw o r k . H e r e ite r a te d th is c o n c lu s io n in h is D e c e m b e r1 9 9 3 n o te . I n M a y 1 9 9 4 , W a r r e n w a s r e le a s e d to3

re turn t o w ork l i gh tdu ty. D r. M athew s s ub m i t t ed st at em ent s t o t he i nsurance com pani es i n 1 99 4 and 19 95 , ea ch t i m e i nd i ca t i ng thatW arre n cou l d n o l on ger p e r f o r m h e rf o r m e rjo b b u t th a t s h e w a s c a p a b le o f p e r f o r m in g s e d e n ta r y a c tiv itie s . In the fol l ow i ng ye ar s, W arre n t oo k t i m e off un der the F am i l y M edi ca l L ea ve A ct a nd r e que s t e d l e a ve s of

a bs e nc e s a nd s hor tt e r m di s a bi l i ty due t o he ri nj ur i e s . S he a ls o e v e n tu a lly h ir e d c o u n s e l a n d s o u g h t w o r k e r ’s c o m p e n s a tio n . T h e c la im se t t l ed i n 1 99 7. D uri ng the se t t l em entcom m un i ca t i on s betw ee n W arre n’ s a t t orney a n d th e C o u n ty ’s r is k m a n a g e m e n t o f f ic ia l, c o u n s e l r e q u e s te d th e C o u n ty r e tr a in W arre n for anot her posi t i on . T he C ou nt y i nform ed W arre n t hatshe c ou l d speak w i th p er sonn el abou top en po si t i on s w i thi n h erre stri ct i on s. S om et i m e there af t er , W arre n con t ac t ed the F l ori da C om m i ss i on on H um an R el at i on s t o i nv es t i gat e her c l a i m of di s c r i m i na t i on. B e tw e e n 1997 a nd 2001, W a r r e n ne ve rnot i f i e d the C ounty of

he rw or k s t a tus . W a r r e n r e m a i ne d on l e a ve of a bs e nc e , a nd, i n 2000, the C ou nt y not i fi ed her thati tw ou l d t er m i nat e herem pl oym entdu e t o t he ext entof her l e a ve . W a r r e n r e s ponde d tha ts he w oul d a w a i tthe out c om e of the F l or i da C om m i ss i on on H um an R el at i on s i nv es t i gat i on . In 20 01 , the C ou nt y i nform ed her th a t it w o u ld r e v o k e h e rle a v e s ta tu s . I t e n c o u r a g e d h e rto s p e a k w ith p e r s o n n e l to di sc uss opt i on s, i ncl ud i ng re as on abl e a cc om m od at i on s. W arre n agai n res po nd ed thatshe w ou l d aw ai tthe ou t com e of the i nv es t i gat i on . T he C ou nt y then t er m i nat ed4

h e re m p lo y m e n t. W a r r e n t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he ha d done e ve r y thi ng s he c oul d, a nd e ve r y thi ng the C ounty a s ke d he rt o do, t o r e tur n t o w or k, a nd tha tbe tw e e n 1993 a nd 1997, s he bel i eved the C ou nt y w ou l d fi nd a posi t i on for her . S he al so bel i eved there w er e ot her posi t i on s a vai l abl e thatshe w as qu al i fi ed t o p er form , bu tthatshe w as never t ol d t o con t ac tpers on nel t o see abou tthe po si t i on s. S he adm i t t ed thatshe never ap p l i ed fo r an y o th er p o si t i o n an d n ev er w ro t e t o th e C o u n ty t o req u est ac com m od at i on . S he st at ed thatshe had no tse en the 19 97 l ett erbetw ee n h er att orney a nd the ri sk m anagem entoffi ci al i nd i ca t i ng thatshe s ho ul d con t ac t pers on nel . S he al so st at ed thather a t t orney never t ol d h ert o con t ac tpers on nel abou top en po si t i on s. A l tho ug h she adm i t t ed thatshe per sonal l y neverre qu es t ed an ac com m od at i on , and t hather physi ci an w as no tautho ri ze d t o actas her re pres ent at i ve t o requestany a cc om m od at i on , she t es t i fi ed thather a t t orney m ade a r e q u e s t d u r in g th e w o r k e r ’s c o m p e n s a tio n s e ttle m e n t in 1 9 9 7 . A tth e co n cl u si o n o f th e ev i d en ce, th e C o u n ty m o v ed fo r j u d g m en tas a m att erof l aw , as se rt i ng , i nt eral i a, thatthe do ct or w as no tW arre n’ s a gent , W arre n n e v e rr e q u e s te d a n y a c c o m m o d a tio n , a n d r e tr a in in g w a s n o t a r e a s o n a b le a c c om m oda t i on. T he c our tt ook the m ot i on unde ra dvi s e m e nt , a nd pe r m i t t e d the c a s e to g o to th e ju r y .5

T he j ury f

ou nd i n W arre n’ s f

avor, spec i fi ca l l y c on cl ud i ng thatW arre n o r her re pres ent at i ve re qu es t ed an acc om m od at i on ; the re qu es t ed ac com m od at i on w as r e a s o n a b le ; a n d th e C o u n ty u n r e a s o n a b ly r e f u s e d th e a c c o m m o d a tio n . T he C ou nt y r enew ed i t s m ot i on for j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw , ar gu i ng that the onl y pos s i bl e r e que s tf ora n a c c om m oda t i on w a s i n the l e t t e ri n r e ga r d t o the w orker’ s c om pensat i on cl ai m . Itno t ed thatthe re spon se spec i fi ca l l y i nform ed W arre n t hatshe c ou l d t al k t o p er sonn el , bu tthatW arre n n evert oo k t hatst ep. It further a rgued t hata r equestt o retra i n d i d n otqu al i fy as a r equestfor a n a c c om m oda t i on be c a us e r e tr a i ni ng i m pl i e d tha tW a r r e n w a s notqua l i f i e d f orthe pos i t i on. T he C ounty a l s o not e d tha tW a r r e n t e s t i f i e d tha tthe doc t orw a s not a c tin g a s h e ra g e n t. W arren resp o n d ed th atsh e w as n o treq u i red t o u se m ag i c w o rd s t o req u est a n a c c om m oda t i on, a nd tha tthe i nf or m a t i on f

r om he rphy s i c i a n w a s e nough. S he further r ei t er at ed thatthe C ou nt y w as re qu i re d - and fai l ed - t o eng age i n an in te r a c tiv e p r o c e s s to f

in d a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the C ounty ’ s m ot i on, f i ndi ng, i nt e ra l i a , tha tno r e a s o n a b le ju r y c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t W a r r e n r e q u e s te d a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n . T h e c o u r t n o te d th a t W a r r e n w a s r e q u ir e d to m a k e a s p e c if ic de m a nd, a nd tha tthe a t t or ne y ’ s s t a t e m e ntdur i ng a w or ke r ’ s c om pe ns a t i onWarren also argues for the first time that it is unknown whether theattorney reque sted 2 retraining or

rea ssignment. She raises this claim for the first time on appeal. Arguments raised f or thefirs t ti meon

a pp e a l areno t c on sid e re d b y thi s c ourt , a

bs e nt o neof

fi vee xcepti on s n ot a

pp lic a ble here . Narey

v. Dea n, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526- 27 (11th Cir. 1994). This argument is mispl ace d. An employer’ s duty to eng ag e in a n interac tive proce ss does 3 n o t t rig g e r unti l thee mp lo ye eh a s id e nti f ie d an d r e qu e s te d

a c c o mm o d ati o n . Lu c a s v . W. W. Grainger, I

nc., 257 F .3d 1249, 1256 n.2 (11th Cir. 2001). 6 s e ttle m e n t w a s n o t s u f

f ic ie n t. T h e c o u r t f

u r th e re x p la in e d th a t a r e q u e s t to r e tr a in w ou l d n otqu al i fyas a r ea sonabl e a cc om m od at i on . A cc ordi ng l y, the courtgrant ed th e C o u n ty j u d g m en tas a m at t er o f l aw . W arren n o w ap p eal s. W a r r e n a r gue s tha tthe r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe j ur y t o c onc l ude th a t s h e o rh e rr e p r e s e n ta tiv e r e q u e s te d a n a c c o m m o d a tio n b e c a u s e n o m a g ic w o r d s w e r e r e q u ir e d a n d th e C o u n ty w a s o n n o tic e th a t s h e w a n te d to r e tu r n to w or k. S he di s put e s tha tthe r e que s tf orr e tr a i ni ng w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntbe c a us e the 2 C o u n ty s h o u ld h a v e w o r k e d w ith h e rto d e te r m in e if th e r e w e r e p o s itio n s a v a ila b le thatdi d n otre qu i re re tra i ni ng . S he as se rt s thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s posi t i on “ pl ac es 3 al l the bu rden on the em pl oyee and n o res po nsi bi l i ty w hat soeveron the em pl oyer . ” S he st at es thati tw as suff i ci entthatthe C ou nt y knew of her di sabi l i ty, her l i m i t at i on s, and h erdesi re t o return t o w ork t o t ri gg erher r i gh tt o an a c c o m m o d a tio n . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof a m ot i on f

orj udgm e nta s a m a t t e rof l aw de no vo . C ol l ado v . U ni t ed P ar ce l S er v. , C o. , 41 9 F . 3d 11 43 , 11 51 (11t h C i r.7

2 0 0 5 ) . T h is c o u r t d r a w s “a ll r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e s . . . in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le t o t he no nm ov i ng party. W here no l egal l y s uffi ci entevi dent i ary bas i s e xi st s f or a r e a s o n a b le ju r y to f

in d f o rth a t p a r ty o n th a t is s u e , ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w is pr ope r . ” R os s ba c h v. C i ty of M i a m i , 371 F . 3d 1354, 1356 ( 11th C i r . 2004) (c i t at i on s a nd qu ot at i on s om i t t ed). T h e A D A f

o rb id s c o v e r e d e m p lo y e r s f r o m d is c r im in a tin g “a g a in s t a q u a lif ie d 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 reg ard t o . . . d i sch arg e o f em p l o yees. ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 2 1 1 2 (a) (2 0 0 0 ). T o est ab l i sh a p ri m a faci e case o f em p l o ym en td i scri m i n at i o n u n d er th e A D A , a p l ai n t i ff m u st d e m o n s tr a te “th a t ( 1 ) [ s ]h e h a s a d is a b ility , ( 2 ) [ s ]h e is a ‘q u a lif ie d in d iv id u a l,’ w hi c h i s t o s a y , a bl e t o pe r f or m the e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons of

the e m pl oy m e ntpos i t i on tha t[ s ] he hol ds ors e e ks w i th orw i thoutr e a s ona bl e a c c om m oda t i on, a nd ( 3) the defe nd antun l aw ful l y di sc ri m i nat ed agai nst[her ] beca use of the di sabi l i ty. ” D ’ A ng el o v . C on A gra F oo ds, Inc. , 42 2 F . 3d 12 20 , 12 26 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). A n e m pl oy e runl a w f

ul l y di s c r i m i na t e s a ga i ns ta qua l i f i e d i ndi vi dua l w i th a di s a bi l i ty w he n the e m pl oy e rf a i l s t o pr ovi de “ r e a s ona bl e a c c om m oda t i ons ” f orthe di s a bi l i ty - unl e s s doi ng s o w oul d i m pos e undue ha r ds hi p on the e m pl oy e r . 42 U . S . C . § 12112( b) ( 5) ( A ) ; L uc a s v. W . W . G r a i nge r , I nc . , 257 F . 3d 1249, 1255 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ T he pl a i nt i f f be a r s the bur de n of

i de nt i f y i ng a n a c c om m oda t i on,Moreover, the EEO C’s interpre tive guidelines, issued pursuant to i t s au th o rity to issue 4 regulations under the AD A, provide that “[i] n g eneral . . . it is the re sponsibili ty of the individual with a disability

to inform the employer that an acc ommodation is neede d.” 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 A pp. § 1 63 0. 9. “ On c ea

qu a lif ie d in div idu a l w itha

dis a bil ity ha s re qu e ste d p ro visi on of re a so na ble a c c o mm o d at i o n , th ee mp l o ye r mu s tm ak ea

r e a s o n a b l ee f f o rtt o d e t e r

m i n eth ea

p p r o p ri ate acc ommodation.” I d. 8 an d o f d em o n stra ti n g th at th e a cc o m m o d atio n allo w s h im to p er fo rm th e jo b ’s e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i ons . ” I d. a t1255- 56; E a r l v. M e r vy n’ s , I nc . , 207 F . 3d 1361, 1367 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ; S t e w a r tv. H a ppy H e r m a n’ s C he s hi r e B r i dge , I nc . , 117 F . 3d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 7 ) . A n e m p lo y e e ’s f a ilu r e to r e q u e s t a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n is f

a ta l to th e p r im a f

a c ie c a s e ; “th e d u ty to p r o v id e a r e a s o n a b le a c c om m oda t i on i s nottr i gge r e d unl e s s a s pe c i f i c de m a nd f

ora n a c c om m oda t i on ha s be e n m a de . ” G a s t on v. B e l l i ngr a th G a r de ns & H om e s , I nc . , 167 F . 3d 1361, 13 63 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ). 4 H er e, the evi dence, vi ew ed i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o W arre n, es t abl i shed tha tW a r r e n ne ve rr e que s t e d a ny a c c om m oda t i on, e i the ron he row n orthr ough a r e pr e s e nt a t i ve . W a r r e n he r s e l f a dm i t t e d tha ts he ne ve rr e que s t e d a ac com m od at i on , never cont ac t ed pers on nel , and n everi nq ui re d abo utop en po si t i on s f

or w hi ch she w as qu al i fi ed. C on tra ry t o W arre n’ s a rgum ent , the bu rden i s e nt i re l y on t he pl ai nt i ff . L ucas , 25 7 F . 3d at12 55 -56. A dd i t i on al l y, she a dm i t t ed tha tthe phy s i c i a n w a s nota c t i ng a s he rr e pr e s e nt a t i ve , a nd, the r e f or e , hi s not a t i ons9

thatl i gh tdu ty or s edent ary j ob s w er e nec es sa ry di d n otconst i tut e a re qu es tfor a n a c c o m m o d a tio n . F u rth erm o re, th e at t o rn ey’ s req u estfo r retrai n i n g d i d n o tq u al i fy as a req u est un der the A D A because r etra i ni ng i s nota r ea sonabl e a cc om m od at i on . S ee T urner v. M ob i l e I nfi rm ary A ss ’ n, 19 97 W L 82 75 32 (S . D . A l a. 19 97 ) ( un pu bl i shed), a f f’ d, 149 F . 3d 1196 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( unpubl i s he d) . I f a n e m pl oy e e m us tbe r e tr a i ne d i n or de rt o f

ul f i l l the j ob r e qui r e m e nt s , the e m pl oy e e i s not“ qua l i f i e d” unde rthe A D A . W i l l i s v. C onopc o, I nc . , 108 F . 3d 282, 284 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( not i ng tha tthe pl a i nt i f

f m us tbe qua l i f

i e d f orthe r e a s s i gnm e nts he s e e ks ) . T he A D A doe s notr e qui r e the C ounty t o r e a s s i gn W a r r e n t o a pos i t i on f orw hi c h s he w a s notqua l i f

i e d. L uc a s , 257 F . 3d a t1259; T a y l orv. F ood W or l d, 133 F . 3d 1419, 14 25 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). I n l i ghtof

thi s e vi de nc e , e ve n vi e w e d m os tf a vor a bl y t o W a r r e n, no r e a s o n a b le ju r y c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t W a r r e n r e q u e s te d a r e a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e A F F I R M.