Opinion ID: 4094099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ADA and FCRA Claims

Text: The ADA prohibits discrimination “against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Plaintiff must show that “he had a disability, he was a qualified individual, and he was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of his disability.” Mazzeo v. Color Resolutions Int’l, LLC, 746 F.3d 1264, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff’s FCRA claim includes the same essential elements. Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2016). The determinative issue in this case is whether Plaintiff was a “qualified individual” when the City terminated him. To be “qualified” under the ADA, an individual must be able to perform the “essential functions” of his job with or without reasonable accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). It is undisputed that Plaintiff was limited to “office work” when the City terminated him. Consistent with that restriction, Plaintiff’s doctor testified that he could not drive a police car, patrol the streets, make an arrest, testify in court, manage a law enforcement situation, or do anything else that required leaving the office. Whether a particular job function is essential is evaluated “on a case-by-case basis by examining a number of factors.” Samson v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 746 F.3d 1196, 1200–01 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 12 Case: 15-12401 Date Filed: 10/31/2016 Page: 13 of 24 1220, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005). The employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential is entitled to “substantial weight” in the analysis, as is any written job description. Id. at 1201. Other relevant factors include the amount of time spent performing the function, the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function, and the work experience of past employees in the job and current employees in similar jobs. Id. The City has made clear that, in its judgment, the ability to work outside the office is essential to the lieutenant job. In fact, one reason the City terminated Lt. Dobson is that its internal investigation revealed that Dobson was leaving the jurisdiction while on duty, thus rendering him unable to respond to any situations or emergencies that required his on-site physical presence. In a memo summarizing the investigation, the City emphasized that a lieutenant, as the “highest ranking officer” on duty during his shift, must be able to provide “on-site leadership and direction to the officers and staff.” Depending on the situation, that might include “immediately and physically” responding to arising emergencies in the City or providing “physical assistance or backup to any police officers” in the field. The City’s written job description likewise identifies many duties that a lieutenant must perform outside the office, including testifying in court and other 13 Case: 15-12401 Date Filed: 10/31/2016 Page: 14 of 24 hearings, making arrests, investigating robberies, homicides, and other crimes, attending trainings, and delivering first aid. 8 In addition, according to the job description, a lieutenant “[s]upervises and participates in a variety of special criminal investigative units or specialized support activities including staff training, vice, narcotics and criminal intelligence investigations, internal review functions, court service and licensing activities, [and] communications operations.” Lt. Dobson testified that these activities were “done largely in the field.” The experiences of past and current lieutenants confirm that there are occasions when a lieutenant must work outside the office. Plaintiff stated during his deposition that as a lieutenant he had: managed two hostage incidents, patrolled, made arrests, seized property, driven a police car, spot-checked his officers, responded to emergencies, and testified in court.9 Indeed, Plaintiff’s disabilities arose from two events—the 2009 car crash and the 2010 vomiting incident—that occurred while Plaintiff was working outside the office. Plaintiff confirmed that even while he was on light duty in the aftermath of the vomiting 8 The written job description evolved during the course of Plaintiff’s employment with the City. Like the district court, we rely only on the responsibilities common to each version of the description. 9 In a November 2011 memo to the HR Director, Plaintiff stated that he had “received numerous calls from supervisors and . . . responded to various scenes when needed.” 14 Case: 15-12401 Date Filed: 10/31/2016 Page: 15 of 24 incident, he had: testified in court, seized and impounded property, made arrests, executed search warrants, responded to car accidents, patrolled in his police car when required, and conducted other miscellaneous work in the field such as policing a political demonstration and coordinating the appearance of the President of the United States. Other lieutenants also worked outside the office. Namely, Lt. Dobson patrolled, assisted in an arrest, testified in court, responded to and assisted at major crime scenes, and provided backup to officers in the field. As to the consequences of employing a lieutenant who cannot leave the office, we agree with the district court’s analysis: [T]he burden on the City that would result from not requiring [Plaintiff] to perform the above-listed functions supports a finding that the functions are essential. After Dobson was terminated in November 2011, [Plaintiff] and [one other lieutenant] were the only lieutenants assigned to oversee all three shifts commanding the City’s patrol officers and sergeants. If [Plaintiff] could not leave the office or participate in stress-inducing activities or respond to emergencies, the City would likely either have to hire another lieutenant to work at the same time as [Plaintiff] or shift an undue burden on the City’s only other lieutenant [working as a platoon manager], causing further demands on the already depleted lieutenant ranks. We recognize that there is some evidence in the record to suggest that lieutenants do not spend a significant amount of their time working outside the office. Plaintiff testified that his duties were primarily administrative and 15 Case: 15-12401 Date Filed: 10/31/2016 Page: 16 of 24 supervisory, and that he was not expected to routinely engage in road patrol or make arrests. According to Plaintiff, he voluntarily assumed a more active role in the field than was required by the City or embraced by other lieutenants, few of whom left the office on a regular basis. But that evidence does not affect our conclusion that a lieutenant must have the ability to leave the office. Indeed, Plaintiff acknowledged that lieutenants must provide assistance to officers in the field when necessary, and that, since his car accident in 2009, he had been called upon to provide such assistance during various emergency situations that required him to make “life and death decisions” and coordinate “complex criminal matters” from the scene. In sum, the evidence is that a lieutenant must have the ability to work outside the office even though he might not frequently be called upon to demonstrate that ability. See Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, Ga., 112 F.3d 1522, 1528 (11th Cir. 1997) (finding that being “prepared to respond to unexpected events” was an essential function of the plaintiff’s job, although the need for such a response was relatively infrequent). In that sense, a lieutenant is like a lifeguard, who must have the ability to rescue a swimmer in distress although he might not spend much time actually engaged in that essential activity. Given the substantial evidence favoring the City, there is no basis for a reasonable jury to find that 16 Case: 15-12401 Date Filed: 10/31/2016 Page: 17 of 24 Plaintiff could perform the essential function of working outside the office.10 The City is thus entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA and FCRA claims.