Opinion ID: 204169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Richardson argues that her sole essential function was to oversee the operation of the restaurant and ensure that it ran smoothly. Friendly's disagrees, relying heavily on a written job description for the assistant manager position as proof that it was essential for Richardson to be able to perform a number of predominantly manual tasks as well. The six-page job description is divided into multiple sections. [4] The first substantive section, labeled Primary Task, provides: The primary function of this position is to assist the General Manager with assigned administrative and operational shift duties, provide guidance and direction to restaurant personnel, oversee, direct and assist in kitchen, dining and take-out operations, facilitate production and customer service, ensure safety regulations and quality standards are maintained and that customer satisfaction is achieved. The following section, labeled Essential Functions, lists thirteen general categories of job duties. Among other things, it reiterates that an assistant manager must [r]un shifts, oversee, direct and assist in kitchen, dining and take-out operations to facilitate production and customer service. The remaining sections of the job description are significantly more detailed, listing specific tasks and physical movements that the assistant manager may be asked to perform. Without addressing whether each individual task listed in the written job description is an essential function of the assistant manager position, we conclude that it was essential for an assistant manager to assist in kitchen, dining and take-out operations to facilitate production and customer service. We further conclude, on the basis of the overwhelming weight of the summary judgment evidence, that an assistant manager had to be capable of performing a broad range of manual tasks in order to perform that function. It is undisputed that Richardson was often required to assist her subordinates in performing their jobs and to fill in for them as necessary. Richardson admitted as much in her deposition testimony: Q: And part of your job was, basically, to be able to do any of those jobs in the restaurant that you were trained to do? A: Yes. I think. Ideally, I'm notif I'm a manager, I am not going to be in the grill area trying to run the floor and take care of a customer.... I needed to be able to do everything so that I could train ... and that I could effectively take care of the restaurant. Q: Right. And also to fill in when needed A: Yes. Q: if you needed [to] fill in, right? So if you needed to fill in at the grill, you'd fill in at the grill. A: Yes. Q: And if you needed to fill in to help in the dining room A: Yes. Richardson described in detail the duties she was often required to perform, which included cooking, cleaning, serving food, and unloading delivery trucks. Richardson's husband and physician confirmed in their testimony that her job had a substantial physical component. Indeed, the very premise of Richardson's workers' compensation claim was that her injury was caused by the heavy, repetitive manual tasks that she performed at Friendly's on a daily basis. All of this evidence indicates that Richardson spent a substantial amount of time on the job performing manual tasks around the restaurant. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii) (Evidence that a particular function is essential includes... [t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function....). The written job description also indicates that it was essential for an assistant manager to physically assist in restaurant operations. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i)-(ii) (Evidence that a particular function is essential includes ... [t]he employer's judgment as to which functions are essential [and w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job....). As we have noted, that function is listed as both a Primary Task and an Essential Function. Other manual tasks are listed in the Essential Functions section as well: [r]eceive deliveries, unload products from the trailers with conveyor, hand-truck or by hand as required; [t]ransport stock items to the appropriate storage area cooler, freezer or dry storage area as required; and clean and secure facility and all equipment. When Richardson was asked at her deposition whether the Essential Functions section of the job description accurately described her responsibilities as an assistant manager, she replied, I guess so. The Task Analysis section of the job description lists other duties that the assistant managers were expected to perform: physically assist and/or perform kitchen, dining and take-out operations; cook food items on the grill, in the Fry-o-lator and [in the] microwave oven; deliver prepared meals, beverages, and dessert items to customers; clean and reset tables; bus dishware and utensils to the dishwashing area; load and operate the dishwasher; perform general housekeeping duties; and clean and secure facility, the grounds and all equipment. Again, Richardson admitted at her deposition that this list accurately described her operational duties. In an attempt to rebut this evidence, Richardson argues that she was an assistant manager and thus her primary function was not to do each job itselfthe restaurant specifically employed cooks, wait staff, dishwashers, and other employees to do those jobs. Rather, her primary function was to oversee the operation of the restaurant and ensure that it ran smoothly. To the extent that Richardson means to suggest that the designation of her position as assistant manager implies that her essential functions were limited to managing other employees, we reject that argument. It is not uncommon for managers of small restaurants and retail stores to spend little of their time managing others. See, e.g., Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1272-73 (11th Cir.2008) (noting, in action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, that store managers spent 80 to 90% of the time performing manual labor). Even assuming it is true that Richardson's primary function was to oversee restaurant operations, the point does not advance Richardson's case. The essential functions of a position are not limited to the primary function of the position. For example, we concluded in Kvorjak v. Maine, 259 F.3d at 56, 58, that it was essential for a claims adjudicator to be able to provide advice to other employees notwithstanding our recognition that the core function of the position was adjudicating claims. Similarly, the Tenth Circuit determined in Frazier v. Simmons, 254 F.3d 1247, 1259-61 (10th Cir.2001), that it was essential for a criminal investigator to be capable of physically restraining violent individuals even though the primary functions of the investigator position (investigation and desk work) did not require physical exertion. Richardson points out that some of her physical duties were reduced or shifted to other employees after she was injured in 2006. That evidence has minimal value, however. [A] court must evaluate the essential functions of the job without considering the effect of [any] special arrangements. Phelps v. Optima Health, Inc., 251 F.3d 21, 25 (1st Cir.2001); see also Laurin, 150 F.3d at 60-61 (An employer does not concede that a job function is `non-essential' simply by voluntarily assuming the limited burden associated with a temporary accommodation....). The voluntary accommodations that Friendly's made following Richardson's injury do not alter our assessment of the essential functions of the assistant manager position. [5] Importantly, the evidence shows that there were a limited number of employees among whom the performance of the manual tasks at the Ellsworth restaurant could be distributed. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(ii) ([A]function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed.). Tina Emery testified that during the slowest times of the year, eight to ten employees would be on duty over the course of an entire day. Richardson echoed this testimony, adding that only one of the three managers would be on duty at the beginning and end of each day. Richardson also testified that in the early mornings an assistant manager and a server would typically be the only employees on duty. At those times, the assistant manager would be responsible for preparing all of the food and the server would be responsible for interacting with the customers. This evidence supports a finding that manual duties were essential to Richardson's position. See Hirschhorn v. Sizzler Restaurants Int'l, Inc., 913 F.Supp. 1393, 1399 (D.Nev.1995) ([F]unctions that might not be considered essential if there were a larger staff may become essential because the staff size is small compared to the volume of work that has to be done.); EEOC Interpretive Guidance, § 1630.2(n) ([I]f an employer has a relatively small number of available employees for the volume of work to be performed, it may be necessary that each employee perform a multitude of different functions. Therefore, the performance of those functions by each employee becomes more critical and the options for reorganizing the work become more limited.). [6] We conclude that any reasonable jury presented with the summary judgment record here would find that it was essential for Richardson to assist in kitchen, dining and take-out operations, [7] and that she had to be capable of performing a broad range of manual tasks in order to carry out that function. Especially during periods of light staffing, an assistant manager whose disability prevented her from performing a substantial number of the manual tasks that were part of the daily operations of the Ellsworth restaurant would not be able to fulfill one of her fundamental job duties.