Opinion ID: 4644704
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Establishing essential functions

Text: “Courts require an employer to come forward with evidence concerning whether a job requirement is an essential function.” Hawkins v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 778 F.3d 877, 889 (10th Cir. 2015); see also Laura Rothstein & Julia Irzyk, Disabilities and the Law § 4:11 (4th ed., Oct. 2020 update) (“The employer will generally bear the burden of demonstrating that requirements are fundamental or essential and are not marginal functions.”). To do so, “[t]he employer describes the job and functions required to perform that job.” Mason v. Avaya Commc’ns, Inc., 357 F.3d 1114, 1119 (10th Cir. 2004). At that point, “our disability-discrimination caselaw . . . counsels in favor of deference to an employer’s judgment concerning essential functions.” Hawkins, 778 F.3d at 884-85. “We will not second guess the employer’s judgment when its description is job-related, uniformly enforced, and consistent with business necessity.” Mason, 357 F.3d at 1119. “Once the employer has come forward with evidence that a job function or requirement is essential, the plaintiff bears the burden to dispute that evidence or otherwise show that the function or requirement is nonessential.” Kilcrease v. Domenico Transp. Co., 828 F.3d 1214, 1222 (10th Cir. 2016). “Throughout this inquiry, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing she is able to perform the essential functions of her job.” Osborne, 798 F.3d at 1267 (brackets and quotations omitted).7 7 Although the employer bears the initial burden of production regarding essential functions, “the plaintiff at all times bears the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that he has been the victim of illegal discrimination based on his disability.” Hawkins, 778 F.3d at 887. 13