Opinion ID: 797678
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kleiber's Qualification

Text: 38 Even if a vacancy did exist, however, Kleiber's ADA claims fail because the record evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding his qualification for any particular position. Generally, an ADA plaintiff bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable. Hedrick, 355 F.3d at 457 (internal quotation omitted). Where the requested accommodation is a job transfer, employers have a duty to locate suitable positions for employees with disabilities. Burns, 222 F.3d at 258. Nonetheless, to overcome summary judgment, the plaintiff generally must identify the specific job he seeks and demonstrate that he is qualified for that position. Id. at 258-59. Honda, however, does not have any job descriptions for Production Associates, J.A. at 236 (Moore Dep. at 61), so it was not possible for Kleiber to identify a specific job. 39 Honda itself attempted to locate positions appropriate for Kleiber. For instance, Honda considered Kleiber for various positions within the Assembly Department, but concluded that his limitations rendered him unqualified for each of them. Kleiber does not contest these conclusions. 40 Kleiber argues that he could have performed the exterior wipe-off job process in the plant's Paint Department, and further suggests that having a job coach would be a reasonable accommodation for him in this position. 3 However, uncontroverted evidence reveals that this job process is located in [an] area[ ] with uneven surfaces, including gratings and raised platforms. J.A. at 27 (Bigler Aff. ¶ 19). Kleiber's Functional Capacity Evaluation indicated that his difficulties with balance precluded him from working on uneven surfaces, and Dr. Shadel indicated that Kleiber could work only where balance was not an issue. Accordingly, Kleiber cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact as to his qualification for this job process. 41 Kleiber does not suggest any other job processes for which he may be qualified. He emphasizes that some of his medical personnel concluded that he was capable of general factory work or certain tasks generally associated with factory jobs. Nonetheless, he does not indicate whether this translates to an ability to perform the essential job functions of any position at Honda. Accordingly, on the record before us, no reasonable jury could conclude that Kleiber was qualified for a position at Honda. 42