Opinion ID: 799676
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Essential Functions of a Walgreens Store Manager

Text: An essential function is one that is `fundamental' to a position rather than `marginal.' Richardson v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 594 F.3d 69, 75 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Kvorjak v. Maine, 259 F.3d 48, 55 (1st Cir. 2001)). The regulatory framework provides helpful guidance as to what constitutes such a function. Thus, in conducting the relevant inquiry a court may look to `[t]he employer's judgment as to which functions are essential'; `[w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job'; `[t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job'; and `[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.' Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., 460 F.3d 141, 147 (1st Cir. 2006) (alterations in original) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). Because the applicable statutory and regulatory framework accords a significant degree of deference to an employer's own business judgment regarding which functions are essential to a given position, our inquiry may begin by turning to the written descriptions attached to a particular job. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i) (dictating employer's judgment serves as evidence as to which functions are essential); see also Richardson, 594 F.3d at 76 ([I]f an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We take the written descriptions of the Store Manager position that Walgreens has provided as our starting point, mindful, however, that an employer's good-faith view of what a job entails, though important, is not dispositive. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 283 F.3d 11, 25 (1st Cir. 2002). Walgreens's official written description of the Store Manager position itemizes twenty-nine distinct primary responsibilities, many of which describe the job's duties in aspirational or general terms. Thus, for example, a Walgreens Store Manager is responsible for [a]ssuring [Equal Employment Opportunity] compliance through equity, consistency, and fairness; prevent[ing] workplace harassment;... [and] communicat[ing] openly and honestly to employees at all times. According to Walgreens's description, a Store Manager is similarly responsible for [i]mplement[ing] store organization through proper hiring and placement, scheduling of work, assignment of responsibility, and delegation of authority. These somewhat abstractly-defined primary job responsibilities could make our task more difficult; we have noted in the past that in identifying the functions that are essential to a specific job, [p]recision is critical, as the level of generality at which the essential functions are defined can be outcome determinative. Richardson, 594 F.3d at 75. Nevertheless, undisputed evidence in the record persuades us that the listed responsibilities of the Store Manager position cannot be properly read as an exhaustive list of all the tasks required of an employee in that role and establishes that the Store Manager job is, in indispensable part, an on-your-feet post requiring routine physical activity. [3] We need not discuss each of the duties listed in the Store Manager written job description or the physical tasks that may be involved in fulfilling these. Instead, we train our focus on two primary job responsibilities found in the official Store Manager job description, the details of which have been fleshed out during the litigation below and in the parties' filings to this Court. Specifically, the employer's job description at issue in this case explains that a Store Manager is expected to, among other things, (1) Improve[] and maintain[] store condition, maintenance, and appearance for the safety, health, and well-being of customers and employees.... (2) Implement[] Corporate [planograms] [4] and merchandising guidelines, to include properly using endstands, promotional space, and display tables.... These two primary responsibilities outline the contours of the routine physical tasks that Walgreens requires of a Store Manager and, we conclude, may properly be deemed essential to the position. As we now explain, the summary judgment record leaves no doubt that several physical tasks are part and parcel of these essential functions. While a Store Manager does not spend her days working the chain gang, neither does she merely count beans or paper-push. Cf. Richardson, 594 F.3d at 78 (It is not uncommon for `managers' of small restaurants and retail stores to spend little of their time managing others.). The evidence of record demonstrates that in fulfilling her duties, a Walgreens Store Manager spends an appreciable amount of time performing several tasks of a physical nature. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii) (providing amount of time spent on job performing function serves as evidence of whether that function is essential). In her deposition Jones herself explained that before she injured her knee in 2004, her responsibilities included tasks such as inspecting the sales floor, assisting customers with requests, placing signs on the sales floor, cleaning shelves, restocking shelves, unloading delivery trucks, [] using a ladder to reach high shelves .... [and] walk[ing] the floor `numerous' times on a daily basis. Jones, 765 F.Supp.2d at 106. Telson, Jones's supervisor, also explained that Store Managers were routinely required to, among other tasks, sweep floors, clean bathrooms, pull stock, stock shelves, unload trucks, make end stands become side racks (for store displays), and build tables as these tasks became necessary for a store to operate properly. Telson explained in detail during his deposition that a Store Manager must, commensurate with her responsibilities, conduct daily walkthroughs three feet by three feet at a time. See id. at 107. Telson affirmed that these walkthroughs were a time-consuming endeavor which regularly took more than an hour on account of interruptions from customers, vendors, and employees. Id. Importantly, Telson's averments to this effect were corroborated by two incumbent Store Managers at Walgreens locations, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(vii) (providing current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs is proper evidence of whether a particular function is essential), one of whom testified that he spends six-and-a-half hours on the sales floor every day and one of whom testified that she spends two or three hours doing her walkthrough each day. Jones, 765 F.Supp.2d at 107 (internal citations omitted). Jones stands her ground. She argues that in granting summary judgment in Walgreens's favor, the district court ignored substantial evidence raising triable issues of fact on which functions were essential to her erstwhile post as Store Manager. She urges us not to do the same. Jones begins by claiming that her most recent Walgreens performance review made no mention of her work having been affected by physical limitations or inability to perform any of the above-referenced tasks. She reasons that a jury could have feasibly relied on her past performance of the job to determine that the physical tasks that Walgreens claims are essential to the Store Manager position were unimportant or marginal. Jones's arguments on this point are unavailing. The performance review that Jones brings to our attention, endorsed by both Telson and Jones on April 28, 2006, accounts for Jones's performance as a Store Manager at a Walgreens location in Springfield, Massachusetts during a period of 12 months through March 2006. However, as we discuss further infra, the record shows that whatever Walgreens's understanding of Jones's limitations or restrictions was during this period, it certainly changed when Walgreens received supplementary information from Dr. Luber in September 2006. At that point, Walgreens was informed that Dr. Luber believed that Jones should permanently refrain from engaging in several of the physical tasks listed above. It was only thereafter that Walgreens acted to terminate Jones's employment. Thus, a performance review that was completed approximately five months before Walgreens received this updated medical information is immaterial to answering the question of whether Jones could perform the essential functions of her job as of the date she was terminated. Second, Jones contends that evidence in the record shows that certain tasks Walgreens claims are crucial to the Store Manager role could be either delegated to other store personnel or altogether disregarded. Here, Jones relies on the testimony of Rosemary Patchell (Patchell), an incumbent Store Manager deposed on Jones's behalf. In her deposition, Patchell affirmed that in the five years she had functioned as a Store Manager at her current store location, she had never unloaded a delivery truck because she had opted to routinely delegate that task to her staff. Jones also relies on statements Telson made during his deposition to the effect that several tasks e.g., sweeping the store, setting up stands, side racks, and tables, stocking shelves, and cleaning bathroomscould be delegated to a subordinate, if such a person were available and had been properly trained. Based on this testimony, Jones posits that since a number of tasks were delegable, they could not also be considered essential. Jones's reasoning on this issue is unconvincing. The fact that certain tasks associated with a particular position can be either reduced, reassigned, or reallocated to a subordinate does not, by itself, render them non-essential to the position they were associated to in the first place. See Richardson, 594 F.3d at 78 (noting evidence that restaurant manager's physical duties were reduced or shifted to other employees after she was injured held minimal value as to whether those duties were essential). Our cases recognize that [a]n employer does not concede that a job function is `non-essential' simply by voluntarily assuming the limited burden associated with a temporary accommodation. Laurin v. Providence Hosp., 150 F.3d 52, 60-61 (1st Cir. 1998). Consequently, the fact that at any given time certain tasks ascribed to the role of Store Manager may be delegated or reassigned to other store personnel may inform our inquiry into the job's essential functions but by no means ends it. We conclude that the summary judgment record before us leaves no room for a reasonable jury to fail to find that it was essential for Jones, as Store Manager of a Walgreens location, to (1) improve and maintain store condition, maintenance, and appearance for the safety, health, and well-being of customers and employees and (2) to implement corporate planograms and merchandising guidelines, to include properly using endstands, promotional space, and display tables. In addition, the record establishes that varied tasks of a discernibly physical nature were necessary in carrying out these functions and crucial to the proper performance of the Store Manager position.