Opinion ID: 731052
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Material Fact Questions Exist Regarding the Other

Text: Elements of Harris' Prima Facie Case 57 In order to prevail on her ADA claim, Harris must do more than show that she has a disability. She must also prove the other two elements of her prima facie case--that she was a qualified individual and that she was discriminated against because of her disability. At the summary judgment stage, Harris bears the burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding each of those elements. We readily conclude that she has. 58 On the qualification issue, there is evidence that Hayes admitted to the Georgia Department of Labor representative that Harris did work for me good for a long time. That is consistent with his deposition testimony that he did not have any real problems with Harris' performance as comptroller until the end and that [a]s far as I was concerned Ellen had done a real good job. Deposition of Aldric M. Hayes 17, 18 (Aug. 2, 1994). In view of the fact that Harris held her job with the Company for over three years, and that Hayes had no real problems with her performance until the end (which was around the time of her hospitalization), we are satisfied that Harris has demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was qualified for the position she held. 59 Turning to the discrimination issue, the record evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact about whether Hayes discriminated against Harris on the basis of her disability when he replaced her as comptroller. 2 At his deposition, Hayes gave the following explanation for that decision: I am thinking to myself in this big dilemma I am in right now, what do I do? If I put her in charge [as comptroller] ... then what if she has to go back to the hospital again, I am high and dry. Deposition of Aldric M. Hayes 29 (Aug. 2, 1994). Moreover, as reviewed above, Hayes allegedly explained that he decided to replace Harris as comptroller because he felt that the company was being put in jeopardy, at a disadvantage due to her type illness. One purpose of the ADA is to prevent employers from taking adverse employment actions against disabled employees because they merely feel that their businesses are being disadvantaged due to the disabilities of those employees, without first determining whether those disadvantages could be ameliorated with a reasonable accommodation that does not place an undue hardship on the business. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). The Company has not argued to us, or to the district court, that Harris' medical condition could not be accommodated without placing an undue hardship on the Company. Harris has met her burden at summary judgment on the issue of whether the Company discriminated against her on the basis of her disability.