Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/84/797/568420/
Timestamp: 2019-07-21 05:00:59
Document Index: 705055671

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1630', '§ 1630', '§ 1630', '§ 12112', '§ 1630', '§ 12112', '§ 12112']

Frances Hankins, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the Gap, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 84 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 1996) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 1996 › Frances Hankins, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the Gap, Inc., Defendant-appellee
Frances Hankins, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the Gap, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 84 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 1996)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 84 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 1996)
Argued March 19, 1996. Decided May 29, 1996
Hankins brought her action under both the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Kentucky state law. After discovery was completed, the district court granted The Gap's motion for summary judgment, holding that Hankins was not "an otherwise qualified individual with a disability." Opinion and Order, No. 93-172, at 4-9 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 10, 1995). In addition, the district court found that plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination based on disparity of treatment. Having dismissed plaintiff's federal claims, the district court dismissed her state law claims without prejudice. Hankins timely filed a notice of appeal.
A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. City Management Corp. v. U.S. Chem. Co., 43 F.3d 244, 250 (6th Cir. 1994). Considering all facts and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellant, id., we reverse the judgment only upon a showing of the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).
(5) (A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity [.]
Hankins argues that The Gap's refusal to transfer her to "Pikpak" or "Shoes," once it became aware of her disability, was a failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The Gap responds that neither "Pikpak" nor "Shoes" would have been a reasonable accommodation because (1) "Pikpak" was located in a hotter, brighter, busier, and noisier area than Hankins's customary assignment and was unsuitable for anyone suffering from migraines, (2) "Pikpak" operated at most once or twice a week, and even less often during the shift Hankins wanted to work, and (3) "Shoes" required even greater accuracy than Hankins's customary area, such that the probability of inaccurate picking by Hankins precluded her from working in "Shoes." Hankins does not dispute any of these points, and thus The Gap's contention that "Pikpak" and "Shoes" were not reasonable accommodation is actually quite persuasive. In reality, however, it does not matter whether "Pikpak" or "Shoes" would have been a reasonable accommodation, so long as The Gap made available other reasonable and effective accommodations to Hankins. The Appendix to the ADA regulations explains that "the employer providing the accommodation has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations, and may choose the less expensive accommodation or the accommodation that is easier for it to provide." 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. at 415. As the Supreme Court has held in analogous circumstances, an employee cannot make his employer provide a specific accommodation if another reasonable accommodation is instead provided. See Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 68-69, 107 S. Ct. 367, 371-72, 93 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986). Although an employee is not required to accept an offered accommodation, "if such individual rejects a reasonable accommodation ... that is necessary to enable the individual to perform the essential functions of the position ... the individual will not be considered a qualified individual with a disability." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(d).
In summary, we hold that plaintiff's refusal to accept available reasonable accommodations precludes her from arguing that other accommodations should also have been provided. Although Hankins maintains that the district court committed a fundamental error when it found she was not a "qualified individual with a disability," in reality, the district court was only following the ADA regulations with admirable precision. As noted earlier, § 1630.9(d) clearly states that a claimant "will not be considered a qualified individual with a disability" if she rejects reasonable accommodations that are necessary for her to perform the "essential functions" of her position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(d). Hankins effectively rejected the obvious reasonable accommodations provided by The Gap, proposed other, more dubious accommodations instead, and was thus rendered incapable of maintaining accuracy, an essential function of the merchandise handler's job. In other words, Hankins's § 12112(b) (5) (A) claim was properly decided by the district court, because it presented the quintessential case of an individual not "qualified" under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(d).
Hankins next raises an argument based on 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b) (1). Section 12112(b) (1) sets forth an additional example of "discrimination" under the ADA, not related to providing reasonable accommodation: "limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such applicant or employee." In Hankins's view, The Gap violated this provision by "favoring" certain employees, allowing them to transfer to "Pikpak" after receiving a warning for inaccuracy, while refusing to allow her to do the same. As the district court correctly found, however, Hankins did not present a prima facie case of disparate treatment. The only evidence Hankins produced to support her argument was that one employee was once transferred to "Pikpak" after receiving a written warning. Aside from the fact that this employee did not have migraine headaches, however, Hankins brought forward no evidence to show that she was treated less favorably than other employees because of her migraines. Indeed, Hankins failed to show she was treated any less favorably at all. She admits that she herself was occasionally transferred to "Pikpak" after receiving both verbal and written warnings. As a result, the fact that another employee also experienced the same temporary transfer on a single occasion is hardly sufficient evidence of anything. Hankins plainly has not presented a prima facie case under § 12112(b) (1).
Hankins finally argues that the court abused its discretion when it dismissed her pendent state law claims. Hankins is correct that abuse of discretion is the relevant standard of review. See Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). Hankins is incorrect, however, that any such abuse can be found here.
This court has further instructed district courts, before deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over the state claims, to "consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues." Landefeld, 994 F.2d at 1182. In addition, this court has stated that "generally, 'if the federal claims are dismissed before trial ... the state claims should be dismissed as well.' " Id. (citing Taylor v. First of America Bank-Wayne, 973 F.2d 1284, 1287 (6th Cir. 1992)). Under these guiding principles, Hankins is unable to prevail. She fails to show how any substantial savings in judicial resources would be gained that outweigh the interest in avoiding the unnecessary resolution of state law issues. She points to no undue amount of wasted or duplicative effort that will result from having to re-file her claims in state court. Discovery has been completed in this case, and there is no reason to think that any additional discovery will be necessary should she refile her state claims in state court. In sum, Hankins has not shown an abuse of discretion.