Opinion ID: 2744918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: general ada principles

Text: The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against “a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). 2 Discrimination under the ADA includes the failure to make a reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of the individual. Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A); Holly v. Clairson Indus., LLC, 492 F.3d 1247, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining 1 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Holly v. Clairson Indus., LLC, 492 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 2 Because disability discrimination claims under the FCRA are analyzed under the same standards as ADA claims, our reasoning with respect to Rabb’s ADA claim applies equally to her FCRA claim. See Holly, 492 F.3d at 1255. 2 Case: 14-11287 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 3 of 10 that “an employer’s failure to reasonably accommodate a disabled individual itself constitutes discrimination under the ADA, so long as that individual is ‘otherwise qualified,’ and unless the employer can show undue hardship”). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is disabled; (2) she is a qualified individual; and (3) she was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of her disability. Id. at 1255-56. In the district court, the parties agreed that Rabb was disabled, but contested the second and third elements of the prima facie case. A qualified individual is one “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). In other words, the plaintiff must show that she “can perform the essential functions of [her] job without accommodation, or, failing that, show that [she] can perform the essential functions of [her] job with a reasonable accommodation.” Davis v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 205 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2000). If the plaintiff cannot perform the essential functions of her job even with an accommodation, by definition she is not a qualified individual under the ADA. Id. The plaintiff bears the burden both to identify an accommodation and show that it is reasonable. Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282, 284-86 (11th Cir. 1997). Once the plaintiff has met her burden of proving that reasonable 3 Case: 14-11287 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 4 of 10 accommodations exist, the defendant-employer may present evidence that the plaintiff’s requested accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer. Id. at 286 (explaining that undue hardship is an affirmative defense, but that evidence of whether an accommodation is reasonable will often also bear on whether the accommodation poses an undue burden on the employer). Accommodations are “modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position . . . is customarily performed . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). The ADA, however, does not require an employer to accommodate an employee in the manner she desires, so long as the accommodation it provides is reasonable. Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1285 (11th Cir. 1997). An employer also is “not required to transform the position into another one by eliminating functions that are essential to the nature of the job as it exists.” Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1260 (11th Cir. 2001). A reasonable accommodation “may include . . . job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules; [or] reassignment to a vacant position . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) (emphasis added); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii). The fact that both the statute and regulations list part-time work “as a potential reasonable accommodation” does not mean “part-time work is always a reasonable accommodation.” Terrell v. USAir, 132 F.3d 621, 626 (11th Cir. 1998). Rather, 4 Case: 14-11287 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 5 of 10 “[w]hether an accommodation is reasonable depends on specific circumstances,” and “[i]n a specific situation, part-time employment may or may not be reasonable.” Id. Further, while part-time work may be reasonable if the employer has part-time positions “readily available,” there is no duty to create a part-time position where the employer has eliminated part-time positions. Id. at 626-27 (“Whether a company will staff itself with part-time workers, full-time workers, or a mix of both is a core management policy with which the ADA was not intended to interfere.”); see also Willis, 108 F.3d at 284, 286 (stating that reassignment to a new position is required as a reasonable accommodation only if there is an available, vacant position and concluding that the plaintiff presented no evidence of the existence of any vacant positions).