Opinion ID: 157911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 1992 Recall

Text: At the time of her first recall notice, in 1992, Ms. Nicholson admitted she could not perform the assembler-installer job to which she was being recalled. Now, however, she argues that overhead reaching was not an essential function of that job and/or that the job could have been restructured to eliminate overhead work for Ms. Nicholson by redistributing it among other members of her team. The district court concluded that the undisputed facts established that overhead work was an essential function of the job to which she was recalled in October 1992. We agree. Both the HF and the GRS reports analyzing the assembler-installer job stated that it involved frequent overhead work and frequent lifting of tools of 5 pounds and more. Ms. Nicholson’s own expert on rehabilitation, Wilbur Swearingin, testified that he concurred in those aspects of those reports. Appellant’s App. Vol. I at 261. The reports also stated that accommodation to eliminate or substantially reduce overhead work for Ms. Nicholson in that job was not feasible. Thus, we agree with the district court that 5 (...continued) It is unlawful for a covered entity to discriminate on the basis of disability against a qualified individual with a disability in regard to: .... (b) Hiring, . . . [and] right of return from layoff . . . . - 13 - the undisputed facts establish that overhead work was an essential function of the assembler-installer job to which Ms. Nicholson was being recalled, and that Ms. Nicholson, by her own admission, was unable to perform overhead work at the time of her October 1992 recall.