Opinion ID: 2759857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prima Facie Discrimination

Text: The parties to this action disagree over the elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Their disagreement identifies a discrepancy in the Fifth Circuit’s cases evaluating the requisite nexus between an employee’s disability and her termination. 1 Our case law consistently requires the claimant to prove (1) she has a disability and (2) she is qualified for the job she held. Compare Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare Sys., Ltd., 176 F.3d 847, 853 (5th Cir. 1999), with Burch v. Coca– Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 320 (5th Cir. 1997). The cases then splinter into three distinct lines regarding causal nexus. One line of cases requires the employee to prove “(3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision on account of his disability.” Zenor, 176 F.3d at 853 (citing, inter alia, Robertson v. Neuromedical Ctr., 161 F.3d 292, 294 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), and Robinson v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 101 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1996)); see also Chiari v. City of League City, 920 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 1991) (interpreting the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.A. § 794(a), the ADA’s predecessor). A second line of cases requires the employee to prove “(3) he or she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) he or she was replaced by a nondisabled person or was treated less favorably than non-disabled employees.” Burch, 119 F.3d at 320 (citing Daigle v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 70 F.3d 394, 396 (5th Cir. 1995)). A third line in essence requires an employee to prove nexus twice, asking her to show “[3] she was subjected to an adverse employment 1 In Burch v. Coca–Cola Co., this Court noted the discrepancy but did not reach the question of which formulation was proper. 119 F.3d 305, 321 (5th Cir. 1997). We held that the employee failed to establish that he suffered from a disability. 6 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 action on account of her disability or the perception of her disability, and [4] she was replaced by or treated less favorably than non-disabled employees.” Chevron Phillips, 570 F.3d at 615 (citing McInnis v. Alamo Cmty. Coll. Dist., 207 F.3d 276, 279 (5th Cir. 2000)). We apply the first formulation, articulated in Zenor, for four reasons. First, the Zenor formulation was first used in the disability-discrimination context in Chiari, a 1991 case. 920 F.2d at 315. By contrast, the Burch formulation was first used in the disability-discrimination context in Daigle, a 1995 case. See 70 F.3d at 396. 2 Following this Court’s rule of orderliness, subsequent panels were and are bound by Chiari. See Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008) (“It is a well-settled Fifth Circuit rule of orderliness that one panel of our court may not overturn another panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in the law, such as by a statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court.” (internal citations omitted)). Second, Burch’s requirement that a plaintiff prove she was replaced by or treated less favorably than non-disabled employees was likely imported from McDonnell Douglas—a case focused on discriminatory hiring, not termination. There, the Supreme Court required a plaintiff alleging racially discriminatory hiring practices to prove (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications. 2Daigle without explanation imported this element from two non-ADA Title VII cases, Norris v. Hartmax Specialty Stores, Inc., 913 F.2d 253, 254 (5th Cir. 1990), and E.E.O.C. v. Brown & Root Inc., 688 F.2d 338, 340–41 (5th Cir. 1982). 7 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 411 U.S. at 802 (footnote omitted). In the McDonnell Douglas context, where the employer and the applicant have only a handful of interactions before the allegedly discriminatory hiring decision is made, the subsequent history of the open position is highly relevant to a finding of discrimination. By contrast, where termination is at issue, plaintiffs may draw on their employment history to prove a nexus between their protected trait and their termination. Therefore, rather than articulating the standard for a prima facie discriminatory-discharge claim, the Burch line is best understood as providing one possible way to prove nexus between the employee’s disability and her termination. Third, although the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the matter, the other circuits have overwhelmingly required plaintiffs to prove their termination was because of their disability rather than provide evidence of disfavored treatment or replacement. 3 The Zenor formulation is in step with our sister Circuits. 3 See, e.g., Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 419, 433 (6th Cir. 2014) (“[P]laintiff must show that (1) he is disabled, (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of a position, with or without accommodation, and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.”); Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530, 544 (10th Cir. 2014) (requiring “evidence that (1) [Plaintiff] is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with or without accommodations; and (3) he was terminated ‘under circumstances which give rise to an inference that the termination was based on [his] disability’” (citations omitted)); Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff must show that: “(1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) she is qualified to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3) she has suffered from an adverse employment decision because of her disability.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120, 125 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[P]laintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) his employer is subject to the ADA; (2) he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) he suffered adverse employment action because of his disability.” (citation omitted)); Jones v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 696 F.3d 78, 87 (1st Cir. 2012) (“[P]laintiff must show that he (1) is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (3) was discharged or otherwise adversely affected in whole or in part 8 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 Finally, we decline to apply the third formulation, articulated in Chevron Phillips, 570 F.3d at 615, for the additional reason that it requires plaintiffs to prove causation twice. This requirement is inconsistent with McDonnell Douglas and at odds with the underlying purpose of anti-discrimination legislation—namely, to remove “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.” McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 801 (quoting Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 430–31 (1971)); accord Burch, 119 F.3d at 313 (noting that the ADA is “designed to remove barriers which prevent qualified individuals with disabilities from enjoying the same employment opportunities that are available to persons without disabilities” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore follow the Zenor line of cases. “To establish a prima facie discrimination claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he was qualified for the job; [and] (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision on account of his disability.” 176 F.3d at 853. Because here the first element is uncontested for purposes of summary judgment, we turn to Sones’s qualifications for employment.
To avoid summary judgment, the EEOC must show that either (1) Sones could “perform the essential functions of the job in spite of [her] disability,” or, if she could not, (2) that “a reasonable accommodation of [her] disability would because of his disability.” (footnote omitted)); Reynolds v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143, 150 (4th Cir. 2012) (requiring “demonstrate[ion] that (1) [plaintiff] ‘was a qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he ‘was discharged’; (3) he ‘was fulfilling h[is] employer’s legitimate expectations at the time of discharge’; and (4) ‘the circumstances of h[is] discharge raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination.’”(alterations in original) (quoting Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d 266, 273 n.9 (4th Cir. 2004)). 9 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 have enabled [her] to perform the essential functions of the job.” Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1093 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citing the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8), which defines “qualified individual” as “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position . . .”). A function is “essential” if it bears “more than a marginal relationship” to the employee’s job. Chandler v. City of Dall., 2 F.3d 1385, 1393 (5th Cir. 1993), holding modified on other grounds as discussed in Kapche v. City of San Antonio, 304 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). The ADA defines “reasonable accommodations” to include job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B). The district court concluded that the EEOC failed to make a prima facie case that Sones was a “qualified individual.” We agree with the district court that driving was an essential function of the Field Nurse position and that LHC could have provided no reasonable accommodation. However, we find that there are genuine disputes as to (1) whether driving was an essential function of the Team Leader position; (2) if so, whether LHC reasonably could have accommodated Sones’s inability to drive in the Team Leader role; and (3) whether LHC reasonably could have accommodated Sones’s difficulty with the essential computer-related and communications duties of a Team Leader. Finally, the parties dispute whether Sones was a Team Leader or a Field Nurse when she was terminated. Because Sones may have been qualified for the former position but not the latter, this dispute is material. 10 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703
LHC contends that driving is an essential function of both positions. Courts owe deference to an employer’s position description: “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). But this deference is not absolute: The inquiry into whether a particular function is essential initially focuses on whether the employer actually requires employees in the position to perform the functions that the employer asserts are essential. For example, an employer may state that typing is an essential function of a position. If, in fact, the employer has never required any employee in that particular position to type, this will be evidence that typing is not actually an essential function of the position. Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(n) (emphasis added). Fact-finders must determine whether a function is “essential” on a case-by-case basis. Id. LHC requires that Team Leaders and Field Nurses have a “[c]urrent Driver’s License and vehicle insurance, and access to a dependable vehicle.” The position descriptions also emphasize that “[s]ignificant portions (more than 50%) of daily assignments require travel to client/resident/patient locations or other work sites, via car or public transportation.” Sones estimated that as a Field Nurse she spent “probably a couple hours” of her eight-hour day driving to patient homes. However, contrary to the written position description, Team Leaders in practice drove far less frequently than did Field Nurses. Statements in Guchereau’s deposition qualify the driving requirement in the position description: many Team Leader tasks were performed in the branch office. 11 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 Both LHC’s position description and Sones’s testimony confirm that Field Nurses are expected to spend large portions of their day driving. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that as a matter of law driving is an essential function of that job. But because the record contains evidence that traveling was not as prominent a part of a Team Leader’s duties as the position description suggests, taking all reasonable inferences in favor of the EEOC, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether driving was an essential function of that position. LHC next contends that it would have been impossible to reasonably accommodate Sones’s inability to drive in either role. The ADA requires employers to make “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). However, “[t]he ADA does not require an employer to relieve an employee of any essential functions of his or her job, modify those duties, reassign existing employees to perform those jobs, or hire new employees to do so.” Burch v. City of Nacogdoches, 174 F.3d 615, 621 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding employer was not required to accommodate firefighter who could not fight fires); see also Barber v. Nabors Drilling U.S.A., Inc., 130 F.3d 702, 709 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We cannot say that [an employee] can perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation, if the only successful accommodation is for [the employee] not to perform those essential functions.”). On the summary-judgment record, we cannot say that a reasonable accommodation would have permitted Sones to complete an essential function that occupied “a couple hours” of a Field Nurse’s typical day. The EEOC argues that reasonable accommodations were available: Guchereau permitted Sones to receive rides to six patient calls from her mother on one occasion and 12 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 Picayune may have had a handful of public transportation options, including van services. 4 But the EEOC has not offered prima facie evidence that any of these potential accommodations was a feasible daily solution. Because driving is such a central part of the Field Nurse position, the district court properly concluded that LHC could not have reasonably accommodated Sones’s restriction: Sones was not qualified to work as a Field Nurse. We reach a different conclusion regarding the Team Leader position. Even if driving were an essential function of a Team Leader, Sones might have carried out the job with reasonable accommodation. Compare Molina v. DSI Renal, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 984, 1003 (W.D. Tex. 2012) (interpreting analogous Texas statute and denying summary judgment when record contained no evidence that providing the requested accommodation would cause employer “undue hardship” and when the accommodation “would cause little to no change in the current working arrangements and would not require scheduling additional employees”), with Hammond v. Jacob Field Servs., 499 F. App’x 377, 382–38 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (affirming summary judgment when the only available accommodation was to reassign employee tasks all typically distributed among line operators), and Toronka v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 411 F. App’x 719, 725 (5th Cir. 2011) (affirming summary judgment when the only reasonable accommodation for an employee’s inability to drive was to assign him to non-existent desk-based position). Guchereau’s deposition testimony suggests that a taxi or van service might have enabled a Team Leader to adequately discharge her duties, and LHC’s position description expressly 4 In a footnote, LHC raised the possible concern that permitting Sones to use public transportation would cause LHC to violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 48 U.S.C. § 1985 (HIPAA). The parties mentioned this briefly at oral argument. Because on appeal LHC raised the HIPAA argument only in a footnote, and because the summary-judgment record contains no undisputed facts to support it, we decline to consider the argument here. 13 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 states that travel can be accomplished “via car or public transportation.” This evidence raises a genuine dispute as to whether Sones’s proposed accommodations were the kind of “job restructuring” the ADA envisions. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B). Finally, LHC failed to engage in the ADA-mandated process to consider reasonable accommodations. “Under the ADA, once the employee presents a request for an accommodation, the employer is required to engage in [an] interactive process so that together they can determine what reasonable accommodations might be available.” Chevron Phillips, 570 F.3d at 622. Given the relative infrequency with which she would have been required to drive, Sones’s proposed solutions were not so unreasonable that they absolved LHC of its statutory duty to at least discuss accommodation. Therefore, while the district court properly concluded that the EEOC did not meet its prima facie summary-judgment burden to show Sones was qualified to serve as a Field Nurse, it erred in reaching the same conclusion regarding the Team Leader position. The disputed question of which position Sones actually held is material, precluding summary judgment on qualification.
The EEOC carried its prima facie summary-judgment burden to show Sones was qualified to perform the computer-related tasks of a Team Leader. As an initial matter, LHC and the EEOC debate the extent to which Sones’s disability precluded her from performing these essential functions. LHC points to notes from a meeting between Sones, Guchereau, and Taggard itemizing Sones’s errors 5 and to deposition transcripts highlighting Sones’s inability to 5 These include failures to schedule appropriate patient care, rude communication with field staff, disorganization, inability to answer questions, and clerical mistakes. 14 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 type, use a computer, and remember passwords. LHC argues that Sones was unable to perform even the most basic computer-related functions of the Team Leader position, and that her difficulties predated her seizure. The EEOC concedes that Sones struggled, but it contests LHC’s assertion that her difficulties predated her seizure. Sones may not have been aware of these criticisms, as she had not yet had a performance review as Team Leader. Finally, Sones contends that her limitations were largely due to an unusually high dosage of anti-seizure medication, which Sones was in the process of tapering. If Sones was indeed unable to perform her essential computer-based tasks, then LHC had a duty to work with her toward a reasonable accommodation. As noted, “once the employee presents a request for an accommodation, the employer is required to engage in [an] interactive process so that together they can determine what reasonable accommodations might be available.” Chevron Phillips, 570 F.3d at 622. In Chevron Phillips, this Court considered an accommodations dispute in which the employee “attempted to discuss the terms of her release with [her employer] to clarify her needs, but [the employer] refused.” Id. at 622. We reversed summary judgment, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that the employer “did not attempt to entertain the requested accommodation.” Id. The same is true here. Sones expressly reached out to her supervisors, indicating that she wanted temporary help using computer programs and remembering her passwords in light of her high medication levels. Faced with Sones’s request for “extra help,” Taggard, her supervisor, kept silent and walked away. On this record, a reasonable jury could find that Sones reached out to LHC for accommodation and was denied an interactive process. Because the EEOC has identified a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether 15 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 LHC satisfied its duty to accommodate Sones’s disability, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this issue.
The EEOC sustained its summary-judgment burden to show that Sones “was subject to an adverse employment decision on account of [her] disability.” See Zenor, 176 F.3d at 853. It is undisputed that Sones suffered an adverse employment action—namely, termination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (“No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to . . . discharge of employees . . . .”). To show nexus, the EEOC highlights that Sones’s supervisors criticized her performance only after her seizure and that these criticisms were “exaggerated, unfounded, or fabricated.” It also points to Taggard’s comment, “We’re going [to] have to let you go because you’re a liability to our company.” Similar statements appear in Sones’s EEOC charge: “Taggard told me that if my disability manifested again while I was on the job, [LHC] would be in trouble,” and “[Brown] told me that I was terminated because I have become a liability to [LHC] because of my disability.” We must first decide a threshold evidentiary question. The district court ruled the statements in Sones’s charge were not competent summaryjudgment evidence because they are “presumed to be inadmissible hearsay,” It relied on persuasive authority from two district courts, Stolarczyk ex rel. Estate of Stolarczyk v. Senator Int’l Freight Forwarding, LLC, 376 F. Supp. 2d 834, 842 (N.D. Ill. 2005) and Thompson v. Origin Tech. Bus., Inc., No. 3:99-CV-2077- L, 2001 WL 1018748 at  (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2001). We disagree. First, these two cases are inapposite. In Stolarczyk, the court found inapplicable the residual exception to hearsay, Federal Rule of Evidence 807. 376 F. Supp. 2d at 841–42. In Thompson, the out-of-court statement in question did not qualify as a non-hearsay admission of a party–opponent under Federal Rule of 16 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 17 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 Evidence 801(d)(2). 2001 WL 1018748, at . Neither decision rested on the fact of the EEOC charge. Second, it is true that courts are often reluctant to credit evidence in EEOC charges, grievances, and claims—fearing that the documents are “inherently unreliable because the charge is drafted in anticipation of litigation.” Walker v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., No. 3:05-0153, 2006 WL 724555, at  (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2006); see also Tulloss v. Near N. Montessori Sch., Inc., 776 F.2d 150, 154 (7th Cir. 1985). On summary judgment, however, courts are precluded from weighing credibility. The EEOC charge is competent for use at summary judgment unless it is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence or fails to comport with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)’s requirements. See Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233, 240 & n.6 (5th Cir. 1998); Alvarado v. Shipley Donut Flour & Supply Co., 526 F. Supp. 2d 746, 764 (S.D. Tex. 2007). Here, although the statements contained in the EEOC charge suffer from two layers of potential hearsay infirmities, they fit comfortably within two hearsay exemptions. First, the statements in Sones’s charge were made by LHC employees speaking on behalf of the company; they are therefore not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Second, Sones’s charge repeating the statement is not hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., for the proposition that Sones was in fact a liability. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2). Finally, Sones reproduced the statements in a signed, verified document based on her personal knowledge of the conversation, in accordance with Rule 56(c). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in ruling that the contents of Sones’s EEOC charge were not competent evidence for summary judgment. When viewed in the light most favorable to the EEOC, the chronology of the criticism Sones received and the comments her supervisors made as they 17 Case: 13-60703 Document: 00512866071 Page: 18 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 No. 13-60703 were letting her go raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Sones was fired on account of her disability. The EEOC has provided enough evidence to survive summary judgment on this point.