Opinion ID: 202377
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Employer's Judgment

Text: 27 Acushnet argues that, in the judgment of those most familiar with Mulloy's job functions, Mulloy's physical presence at Ball Plant II was an essential function of his job. Kimberly Francis, who was Acushnet's Director of Engineering and Mulloy's supervisor, stated that [t]o carry out the full responsibilities of the job, [Mulloy] was required to have interaction with the operator of the machine and the machine itself, which necessarily required entrance into the Ball Plant. Specifically, Francis stated that in order to troubleshoot, support electrical safety programs, lead investigations, and take corrective actions, Mulloy had to enter the plant floor, plug his computer into the system to access the program and observe how the machine was reacting to the program commands. . . . This task could not be efficiently performed from a remote location since many of the adjustments are time sensitive. According to Francis, [Mulloy] needed to be able to visually watch the equipment to be able to troubleshoot it. While he could see the controls operation from a remote location, he could not assess [] what the operator is doing, product quality, whether or not [the machine is] shooting balls in the air. 28 In order to design and program the machines, Francis stated that Mulloy had to work with technicians and other engineers on the plant floor . . . [and] enter the area with the machine to make adjustments and finalize the program. To fully perform this function, the engineer must have access to the machines. Francis stated that Mulloy also needed to be able to physically access the machines in order to perform manual adjustments on them and to fully perform the hands-on training function of his job. 29 Francis stated that from May 2000 to November 2001, when Mulloy was restricted from accessing machines in the red zones, Mulloy was reassigned to machines outside of the red zone in the Ball Plant so that he could fully perform all of the necessary functions of the job. During this time, approximately eighty percent (80%) of his work was on machines located outside of the red zone. Mulloy continued to perform a small amount of work — presumably, approximately 20% — on machines inside the red zones, but relied on others physically to access the machines for him. When Mulloy was restricted from Ball Plant II, however, Francis stated that he no longer had regular[] access [to] the machines and the machine operators and, thus, was unable to perform the necessary responsibilities and functions of his job as a senior electrical engineer. Eric Bartsch, Acushnet's Vice President of Golf Ball Manufacturing, who had supervised Acushnet's electrical engineers during his eighteen years at Acushnet, also stated that Mr. Mulloy could not perform the necessary responsibilities and functions of the electrical engineering job from a remote location. According to Francis, Mulloy's job in Fairhaven consisted of finishing up the documentation of previous projects on which he worked in Ball Plant II. Francis stated that [Mulloy] was no longer assigned work that required access to the machines, and instead, [these] assignments were given to other engineers or technicians in the Ball Plant or to outside vendors. Bartsch similarly stated that after Mulloy was transferred to Fairhaven, his tasks were reprioritized and he was instructed to work on documentation and a few small tasks that did not require him to enter the Ball Plant. 30 Not surprisingly, Mulloy rejects the views of his employer. Instead, he asserts that his physical presence in Ball Plant II was not required, and that he performed — and could have continued to perform — his essential job functions remotely from the Fairhaven facility. Mulloy presents five arguments challenging the judgment of his employer. 31
32 Mulloy first offers his own testimony that he did not have to see the machines or those operating them in order to perform his job functions, given his long experience and familiarity with the programming, the machines, the electrical circuits, and the machine operators, and his ability to communicate with mechanical engineers and technicians on the manufacturing floor using telephone communications and remote computer technology. In light of the substantial weight we must accord Acushnet's view of Mulloy's job requirements, together with the wealth of authority recognizing physical attendance as an essential function of most jobs, 5 we agree with the district court that Mulloy's own self-serving testimony that he could perform the essential functions of his job from Fairhaven is insufficient under Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c) to create a `genuine' issue of material fact concerning the essential functions of [his job]. Mason, 357 F.3d at 1121; see id. at 1122 (We are reluctant to allow employees to define the essential functions of their positions based solely on their personal viewpoint and experience.). 33
34 Mulloy points to his performance of the essential functions of his job on-site but outside of the red zones as evidence of his ability to work off-site. We find this comparison unavailing. Acushnet does not dispute that Mulloy performed the essential functions of his job when he was on-site. 6 After being restricted from the red zones, Francis stated that 80% of Mulloy's work assignments were reallocated to machines located outside of the red zones. The other 20% of his work related to machines located within the red zones that did not require physical access. Francis stated that, with respect to those machines located in the red zones, Mulloy relied on another electrical engineer, Ken Souza, and one of Acushnet's electrical technicians, George Desrosiers, to access the restricted areas. Mulloy similarly testified that when he was restricted from the red zones, his focus shifted to problems in the non-restricted half of the plant, while Desrosiers switched places with him. In this way, Mulloy was able to perform the essential functions of his job while on-site, even though he was not able to access all of the manufacturing machines because some of them were located in the red zones. 35 When Mulloy was transferred off-site, however, he could no longer access any of the manufacturing machines, including those outside of the red zones. As the district court stated, the fact that Mulloy may have been able to perform the essential functions of his job on-site despite not [being] able to see some of the machines upon which he directed work to be done . . . does not support an inference that he could adequately perform his job without being able to see any of the machines or be easily accessible to those working on them. Mulloy, 2005 WL 1528208, at . In short, Mulloy's ability to perform his job functions on-site has nothing to do with his ability to perform his job remotely and, therefore, does not support his argument that he could perform the essential functions of his job from Fairhaven. 36
37 Mulloy argues that Francis' positive evaluation of his work on February 19, 2002, more than two months after he was transferred to Fairhaven, demonstrates that he was able to perform the essential functions of his job remotely. We disagree. While the evaluation does not set forth the period of evaluation, it appears to be an annual evaluation based on the numerous work projects listed and its reference to last year's review. It is undisputed that after his transfer to the Fairhaven facility at the end of November 2001, Mulloy continued performing some of the tasks that he had performed at Ball Plant II for approximately one and a half months, until January 10, 2002, when Mulloy was asked to spend 90% of his time typing manuals and his projects were assigned to other engineers. Therefore, regardless of when the annual evaluation began, Mulloy's off-site work on Ball Plant II assignments comprised only one and a half months of the work reviewed in that evaluation period. Francis' positive evaluation of Mulloy's performance for the entire year thus provides inadequate support for Mulloy's argument that he could work remotely from Fairhaven. In fact, Francis states unequivocally in both her deposition testimony and affidavit that Mulloy could not work remotely. 38
39 Mulloy also argues that the district court should not have credited Francis' statements because Riall did not consult Francis prior to terminating Mulloy, and thus did not rely on the information that she provided in his decision to terminate. We disagree. Francis' statements mirror the conclusions of Bartsch who was consulted prior to Mulloy's termination and, therefore, corroborate Acushnet's basis for terminating him. The district court, therefore, did not err in considering this evidence. The district court likewise did not err in considering the statements of Bartsch, who ha[d] worked at Acushnet for eighteen (18) years, was knowledgeable of the necessary responsibilities and functions of the senior electrical engineering job at Ball Plant II, and who determined that Mr. Mulloy was unable to perform the necessary responsibilities and functions of the senior electrical engineer job from a remote location. 40
41 Mulloy also argues that the district court erred in crediting Francis' statement that Mulloy needed to see the machines in order to troubleshoot them. Mulloy notes that the job description refers only to training and supporting maintenance personnel to troubleshoot. According to Mulloy, it is the maintenance personnel — not Mulloy — who need to be able to see the machines. Even if we ascribe this meaning to the words cited by Mulloy, Mulloy's argument is not significantly probative and, in all events, it is directly contradicted by other items in the record. In a second, more detailed job description not referenced by Mulloy, the duties of an electrical engineer include troubleshoot[ing] process-related issues using proven problem solving techniques as well as [t]rain[ing] and support[ing] maintenance personnel to troubleshoot. And in his Statement of Material Facts, Mulloy expressly agreed with Acushnet's list of job responsibilities, which included training and supporting maintenance personnel, [and] troubleshooting electrical and electronic controls, as well as with Acushnet's statement that Mulloy was responsible for troubleshooting and developing new equipment. The district court did not err in considering Francis' statements about troubleshooting. 42