Opinion ID: 204169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Richardson's Ability to Perform the Essential Functions of her Position without a Reasonable Accommodation

Text: Having identified the relevant essential function, we now turn to whether Richardson was able to perform that function without a reasonable accommodation. We must ask whether the summary judgment evidence would permit a jury to conclude that Richardson was capable of performing a sufficiently broad range of manual tasks to effectively assist in kitchen, dining and take-out operations. See Miller v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 107 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 1997) ([I]f an employer has a legitimate reason for specifying multiple duties for a particular job classification ..., a disabled employee will not be qualified for the position unless he can perform enough of these duties to enable a judgment that he can perform its essential duties.) (emphasis altered). In attempting to show that she was able to perform a sufficiently wide range of manual tasks, Richardson focuses on the time period between her January 6, 2006 injury and her September 6, 2006 surgery. The premise of her argument is that her physical abilities as of her January 8, 2007 termination were roughly equivalent to her abilities during the presurgery period. [8] Cf. Land v. Washington County, Minn., 243 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir.2001) (An ADA plaintiff may not rely on past performance to establish that he is a qualified individual without accommodation when there is undisputed evidence of diminished or deteriorated abilities.). Although it is not clear that Richardson had in fact recovered to her pre-surgery level by that date, we will assume for the purposes of this appeal that she had. Even so, we conclude that she has not shown that there is a genuine issue of fact regarding her ability to perform the necessary range of manual tasks. It is undisputed that Richardson was not able to lift more than five pounds or engage in repetitive manual activity. She contends that she overcame these limitations by altering the manner in which she performed certain tasks. For example, she testified that she was able to cook French fries by cooking small quantities at a time and then removing cooked product with tongs rather than by lifting an entire basket. She also testified that she was able to perform some manual tasks using only her left arm. Richardson admits, however, that even with those modifications she remained unable to perform a number of tasks, including mopping the floor, lifting heavy bags of trash, scooping ice cream, and unloading supplies from delivery trucks. She testified that cooking was very hard for [her] to do with [her] arm and that [t]here was a lot of times when [she] would ask David [Carter, a cook,] for help with assisting [her] in anything to do with lifting. For example, she would have him help [her] bring out the product so [she] could prep it, if it was too heavy. And he'd also end up having to put it back on the shelf. She also suggested that she was unable to clean the Fry-o-lator thoroughly and that she was not able to carry bus buckets full of dirty dishes. Richardson's supervisor, Tina Emery, made similar observations: [Richardson] couldn't take out the trash. She couldn't unload a truck. She couldn't refill our milk machine. She couldn't cook because she couldn't flip Fry-o-lator baskets. Richardson also admitted in more general terms that her disability left her unable to perform a substantial number of manual restaurant tasks. When asked whether there were any unmentioned tasks for which she had to seek help, she replied, I can't think of any right now, but I'm sure there was plenty. It's a restaurant. She reiterated the point in a colloquy with Friendly's attorney: Q: There's a lot of tasks you can do, but there's a lot of tasks you cannot do; is that correct? A: Well Q: Right? A: I guess so. Q: Well you just told me a number you couldn't do; right? A: Right Q: And in a restaurant, there's a lot of those tasks that you cannot do with an arm that you shouldn't work overhead with, shouldn't be using repetitively, and shouldn't be lifting more than five pounds? A: Yes. Finally, she stated in her affidavit: There were times that I felt that I was being required to do work beyond my work restrictions, typically in performing closing duties, only because I was scheduled with another individual, Angela Antonelli, who also was on light duty because she had restrictions related to bilateral wrist problems. Richardson does not contest any of the foregoing evidence. Instead, she argues that the portions of her affidavit describing the manual tasks that she was able to perform raise a genuine issue of material fact as to her qualifications. We disagree. The number of tasks that Richardson was unable to perform was simply too great for her to be able to effectively perform her essential operational duties as assistant manager of a small restaurant like the Ellsworth Friendly's. We conclude that, on the facts of this case, no reasonable jury could find that Richardson was capable of performing her essential function of assist[ing] in kitchen, dining and take-out operations to facilitate production and customer service.