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

Heading: 1994 Recalls

Text: Although the focus of this appeal is the October 1992 recall, Ms. Nicholson also alleges, with less specificity, that there were other recalls in May and November 1994, and she was discriminatorily not rehired at those times. She did not present those claims to the EEOC or the KHRC, as indeed she could not have, since they occurred after those proceedings were concluded. This action was filed on June 15, 1994. The complaint included no claims based on those recalls, although Ms. Nicholson made arguments concerning them in her filing in opposition to Boeing’s summary judgment motion. The district court did not address them, and Boeing urges us to ignore them as well. We agree with Boeing that we could ignore any claim of discrimination relating to those recalls. Ms. Nicholson may not use her response to summary judgment as a substitute for formally amending her complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. However, were the issue squarely before us, Ms. Nicholson would still not prevail. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to Boeing with respect to - 14 - those recalls, because the record permits an adequate determination of whether there are any disputed material facts concerning Ms. Nicholson’s qualifications for any jobs involved in those recalls. Ms. Nicholson’s allegations concerning the May recall are extremely conclusory, and certainly insufficient to raise a disputed factual issue about her qualifications. 6 With respect to the October/November 1994 recall, Ms. Nicholson’s own communication to Boeing, in January 1994, acknowledged that she still had a limiting injury. Boeing’s job analysis of the MOD mechanic job to which the recall applied stated that the job required “frequent overhead work” as well as “constant use of power/vibratory tools.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 340. The most recent medical evaluation, Dr. Blaty’s, indicates that she could not perform that job. Even Dr. Morris’ evaluation, which Ms. Nicholson prefers but which is not inherently more reliable that Dr. Blaty’s, recommends limited overhead work, which supports the conclusion that Ms. Nicholson’s medical restrictions would make it difficult for her to perform the MOD mechanic job. 7 In her appellate brief she states “Nicholson has learned that Boeing had 6 vacant positions for work on Air Force I in or around May 1994.” Appellant’s Br. at 39. Her record citation, to her affidavit filed in opposition to Boeing’s summary judgment motion, is equally vague and conclusory: “It is my understanding that Boeing had an “Air Force One” recall sometime around May 1994, but I was not recalled at that time.” Appellant’s App. Vol. I at 158. To the extent Ms. Nicholson relies upon her deposition testimony, taken in 7 November 1994, that her only real restriction then was overhead work, we remind (continued...) - 15 - The report further states that there was no way to accommodate the medical restrictions listed in Ms. Nicholson’s files. Ms. Nicholson does not specifically refute that conclusion. Thus, Ms. Nicholson was indisputably unable to perform the essential functions of the job or jobs which were available to recall in 1992 and/or 1994. II. Reasonable Accommodation We must next consider whether Ms. Nicholson would have been able to perform the essential functions of any of the recall jobs, with reasonable accommodation. For summary judgment purposes, we consider whether Ms. Nicholson has demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding her ability to perform those functions with reasonable accommodation. As the district court observed, whether or not the HF report, or any other documents in Boeing’s personnel file concerning Ms. Nicholson’s medical restrictions, overstated or inaccurately reported the extent and duration of Ms. 7 (...continued) her that there is no evidence that she told Boeing that her shoulder had improved to where her only limitation was doing overhead work. Moreover, no medical documentation supports the suggestion that Dr. Blaty’s restrictions had become too severe by that time. See Beck v. University of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1134 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that “the [ADA] requires only reasonable accommodations ‘to the known physical or mental limitations’ of an employee”) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)). - 16 - Nicholson’s impairment, it is indisputable that she was unable to do any measurable overhead work, and overhead work was an essential function of the jobs to which Boeing recalled her in 1992. The HF and the GRS report specifically state that modification of the 1992 job to accommodate Ms. Nicholson’s inability to do overhead work was not possible, and the GRS report lists the only possible accommodation as taking another worker to perform Ms. Nicholson’s overhead work. Ms. Nicholson presents no concrete evidence controverting these statements. “An employer is not required by the ADA to reallocate job duties in order to change the essential function of a job.” Milton , 53 F.3d at 1124. The report on the 1994 recall job also indicates accommodation is not possible, particularly with respect to her documented limitation on use of power tools. We therefore agree with the district court that she failed to establish the existence of a disputed material fact regarding the possibility of accommodation in the job to which she had been recalled in October 1992. Although the district court did not address it specifically, we also fail to find a disputed material fact regarding the possibility of accommodation to the 1994 job. Even though reasonable accommodation was not possible by restructuring the particular recall jobs, reassignment to a vacant position whose essential functions Ms. Nicholson could perform is another possible means of - 17 - accommodation. See White , 45 F.3d at 362 (observing that “reassignment may be considered as a reasonable accommodation”). Of course, Ms. Nicholson must first notify Boeing of her desire to be reassigned, which she did in her conversation with Mr. Allen. Once reassignment is considered, there needs to be a reasonable interactive dialogue between the employer and the employee or, as here, the laid off former employee. See Templeton , 162 F.3d at 619 (“The federal regulations implementing the ADA ‘envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties.’”) (quoting Beck , 75 F.3d at 1135). To survive summary judgment on this issue, Ms. Nicholson must offer something “beyond [her] own subjective opinion that [s]he could perform various other jobs at [Boeing].” White , 45 F.3d at 362. The undisputed facts show that Boeing and Ms. Nicholson engaged in the required interactive process. Boeing was well aware of Ms. Nicholson’s medical restrictions. Ms. Nicholson indicated to Boeing in her conversation with Mr. Allen that she wished to be rehired, perhaps in another position than the one to which Boeing was considering recalling her. Boeing informed her there were no suitable vacancies at that time. She did not directly communicate with Boeing again about her desire to be recalled until January 1994, when she again expressed a desire to be rehired but noted that she still had a limiting injury. She provided no medical update of her condition. Boeing responded by again - 18 - considering her for recall in October 1994, but again determined, after reviewing her known medical restrictions, which she had not updated, that she could not perform the particular job and no others were available. Ms. Nicholson has not rebutted Boeing’s showing that that interactive process occurred. She has also failed to meet her summary judgment burden with respect to the existence of other suitable jobs. She cannot simply refer to the numerous other jobs with the same job code as her job, or jobs generally which she believes she could perform. She cannot simply invoke Boeing’s size and say, in effect, “there must be a job somewhere out there that I can perform.” Her own rehabilitation expert, Wilbur Swearingin, opined that Ms. Nicholson had “specialized capabilities in nineteen work areas.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 401. However, he could not identify particular jobs at Boeing to which those capabilities applied, let alone whether there was any reason to believe that any were vacant at the relevant times. Appellant’s App. Vol. I at 263. We agree with the district court that she “cites no evidence to support that either (1) a 305-04 position without the overhead work existed or (2) that such a position, if it existed, was available at the time of her recall. Her failure to provide any evidence that another position was available at the time of her recall fails a necessary element of the accommodation burden: showing an available position.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 566. She similarly fails to present any evidence of - 19 - available positions in 1994 which she could perform. See Milton , 53 F.3d at 1125 (observing that vague allusions to other jobs insufficient to show accommodation was possible). Boeing, by contrast, points to a memorandum prepared in October 1992 which recites her medical restrictions at that time and states that, because of those restrictions, “there are no other positions available in Assembly, or the Fuselage Responsibility Center, that she could perform.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 440. And, of the other employees laid off at the same time as Ms. Nicholson, 58 were rehired around the time of the October 1992 recall to the same position Ms. Nicholson had held and which she admitted she could not at that time perform. Three others were recalled at that time to different positions, about which she does not present any evidence of her ability to perform, given her medical restrictions. Four were recalled in late 1994 to a MOD mechanic job position with the same job code as the MOD mechanic job which Boeing determined Ms. Nicholson could not perform with or without accommodation. In the face of Ms. Nicholson’s clear admission to Boeing that she could not perform the particular job to which she was being recalled in 1992, and in the face of the medical restrictions in Boeing’s file in 1992, 1993 and 1994 which she did nothing to contradict, Ms Nicholson has failed to produce anything more than vague suggestions that there were other jobs available which she could perform. - 20 - Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Boeing, concluding, as did the district court, that the undisputed facts show that Ms. Nicholson was not a qualified individual under the ADA. 8