Opinion ID: 164802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficient evidence of failure to accommodate

Text: 29 Michelin also challenges the jury's finding that it failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Bartee. Michelin raised this issue in its motion for judgment as a matter of law. Thus, we review the District Court's order de novo, applying the same standard as the court below. Roberts, 183 F.3d at 1219.
30 Michelin had a duty under the ADA to allow Mr. Bartee to work in the planning department if, through reasonable accommodations, he could fulfill the essential functions of the position. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5). To facilitate the reasonable accommodation, [t]he federal regulations implementing the ADA envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties. Templeton v. Neodata Servs., Inc., 162 F.3d 617, 619 (10th Cir.1998) (quotation omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2( o )(3). 31 [T]he interactive process must ordinarily begin with the employee providing notice to the employer of the employee's disability and any resulting limitations, and expressing a desire for reassignment if no reasonable accommodation is possible in the employee's existing job. Midland Brake, 180 F.3d at 1171-72 (footnote omitted). After such notice — which the record illustrates occurred here through Mr. Bartee's May 3, 1999, letter — both parties have an obligation to proceed in a reasonably interactive manner to determine whether the employee would be qualified, with or without reasonable accommodations, for another job within the company.... Id. at 1172. 32 While [t]he exact shape of this interactive dialogue will necessarily vary from situation to situation and no rules of universal application can be articulated[,] id. at 1173, [t]he interactive process [necessarily] includes good-faith communications between the employer and employee[,] id. at 1172. As such, after receiving notice from Mr. Bartee, Michelin had a duty to engage with him in a good faith effort to identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. Id. at 1171. 33 Mr. Bartee produced evidence at trial showing that Michelin failed to participate in such an interactive process. Reading the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Bartee, Michelin did not inquire about his restrictions or about the accommodations that he needed to perform the planning position. 11 Instead, Mr. Warner, Mr. Bartee's former area personnel manager, offered the planning job to Mr. Bartee without assessing any of its requirements. Michelin did not offer any position modifications to Mr. Bartee nor did it provide any evidence showing that shortening this position's work day to eight hours or acquiring a larger cart would disrupt essential functions of the job. In fact, the record does not indicate any accommodations offered to Mr. Bartee by Michelin other than the three-wheeled cart, which Mr. Bartee had already stated was too small for his use. The record, then, provides sufficient grounds for the jury to conclude that Michelin failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Bartee. Thus, we affirm the District Court's denial of Michelin's motions for judgement as a matter of law. 12