Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/178/1043/601976/
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 16:46:43
Document Index: 6893034

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12111', '§ 1630', '§ 12111', '§ 1630', '§ 2601', '§ 825', '§ 1630']

Winifred Browning, Appellee/cross-appellant, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant/cross-appellee.equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae, 178 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 1999) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1999 › Winifred Browning, Appellee/cross-appellant, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant/cross-ap...
Winifred Browning, Appellee/cross-appellant, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant/cross-appellee.equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae, 178 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 1999)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 178 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 1999) Submitted Dec. 16, 1998. Filed June 2, 1999
We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo using the same standard as the district court. See Cox v. Dubuque Bank & Trust Co., 163 F.3d 492, 495-96 (8th Cir. 1998). We review questions of fact only to determine whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See id. In order for a plaintiff to recover on an ADA claim, she must establish that, at the time of the adverse employment action: (1) she was a qualified individual; (2) she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; and (3) she was terminated because of her disability. See, e.g., Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 385 (8th Cir. 1995).
Both parties spent great time and effort arguing over whether Browning's impairment was a disability under the ADA, and whether she was terminated because of her disability. We need not reach these issues because we find that Browning failed to establish that she was a qualified individual under the ADA at the time of her termination. Under the ADA, a qualified individual is an individual who, "with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). The determination of whether an individual is qualified for purposes of the ADA is a two-step process, and should be made as of the time of the employment decision. See 29 C.F.R § 1630.2(m) App. The first inquiry is to determine if the individual possesses the requisite skills, education, certification or experience necessary for the job. See id. This is easily established by the fact that Browning previously held the position and performed well. The second inquiry is to determine whether the individual can, despite her impairments, perform the essential functions of the job either with or without reasonable accommodation. See id. An ADA plaintiff may not rely on past performance alone to establish that she is a qualified individual when the record clearly reflects diminished or deteriorated abilities. See Mole v. Buckhorn Rubber Prods., Inc., 165 F.3d 1212, 1217 (8th Cir. 1999). The job for which Browning must be qualified at the time of her discharge is not the temporary part-time position which she tried and failed to return to, but rather the job she held prior to her surgery. See Bowers v.. Bethany Med. Ctr., 959 F. Supp. 1385, 1390 (D. Kan. 1997). Thus Browning had the burden to prove that, with or without reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions of her job as it existed before her surgery. However, the record reflects virtually nothing to indicate that, at the time Browning was fired, she could perform the essential functions of her job with or without accommodation.
Carol Bryant, Browning's former workmate testified for Browning that Browning's job could not have been performed using the dictaphone as an accommodation. Further, it is axiomatic that in order for Browning to show that she could perform the essential functions of her job, she must show that she is at least able to show up for work. See, e.g., Moore v. Payless Shoe Source, Inc., 139 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1998). Browning testified that she was unable to report to work the entire week of June 5. Even if she could have reported to work, Browning was limited to only four hours per day and she made no showing that the essential functions of her full-time job could be performed in four hours. See Burnett v. Western Resources, Inc., 929 F. Supp. 1349, 1356-57 (D. Kan. 1996) (plaintiff restricted to four hours per day walking not qualified for full-time meter reader position).
This result is dictated by the plain language of the statute, see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8), and by logical policy considerations. Assuming that Browning is now a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA due to her injury, there is no principled reason to accord her that status during her convalescence. Had her arm healed completely, such that she developed no disability, the ADA would provide no protection at all. See Heintzelman v. Runyon, 120 F.3d 143, 145 (8th Cir. 1997) (inability to work while recovering from surgery is not a disability under the ADA). See also 29 C.F .R. § 1630.2(j) App.3 Employers are not qualified to predict the degree of success of an employee's recovery from an illness or injury. To afford Browning the protections of the ADA during the early stages of her recuperation from surgery, based on her eventual degree of future recovery, would be to burden Liberty Mutual with the duty to see into the future. We do not believe that such was the intent of Congress in passing the ADA.
At trial, Browning claimed that she was denied leave under the FMLA. The Act provides for up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to deal with a serious health condition. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments submitted, we conclude the district court did not err in its denial of Browning's motion for judgment as a matter of law on her FMLA claim. Under the FMLA, the employer's duties are triggered when the employee provides enough information to put the employer on notice that the employee may be in need of FMLA leave. The employee need not specifically mention FMLA leave, but must state that leave is needed, and the statement should be made within one or two business days. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.303 Dr. Hixon released Browning to work under certain restrictions. And Browning, in fact, started working with those restrictions. On Monday, June 5, Browning's sister notified Liberty Mutual that Browning's arm had gone numb and that she would not be in that day. Two subsequent calls to Dr. Hixon later in the week confirmed to Liberty Mutual that the restrictions had not changed and that Browning was still released to work. A reasonable jury could easily conclude, based on the evidence presented, that Browning failed to give sufficient information to Liberty Mutual such that Liberty Mutual would be on notice that her situation qualified for FMLA leave. See Carter v. Ford Motor Co., 121 F.3d 1146, 1148 (8th Cir. 1997) (notice to the employer must be both adequate and timely); Satterfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 973, 980-81 (5th Cir. 1998) (same), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S. Ct. 72, 142 L. Ed. 2d 57 (1998).
This is not to say that a medical leave of absence cannot be a reasonable accommodation under the appropriate circumstances. See Hudson v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 87 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 1996); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) App. However, the duty to accommodate does not arise unless the employee will be presently qualified if afforded the accommodation