Document: 526 U.S. 865119 S.Ct. 1719144 L.Ed.2d 22 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CLEVELANDv.POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. et al. CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97 1008. Argued February 24, 1999Decided May 1999 After suffering stroke and losing her job, petitioner Cleveland sought obtained Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, claiming that she was unable to work due disability. week before SSDI award, filed suit under Americans Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA), contending former employer, respondent Policy Management Systems Corporation, had discriminated against on account In granting summary judgment, District concluded Cleveland's claim totally disabled purposes estopped from proving an essential element ADA claim, namely, could "perform functions" least "reasonable accommodation," 42 C. §12111(8). Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding application or receipt benefits creates rebuttable presumption recipient pursuing failed torebut presumption. Held: 1. Pursuit, receipt, does not automatically estop erect strong recipient's success. However, survive judgment motion, plaintiff cannot ignore contention too work, must explain why consistent can perform functions reasonable accommodation. Pp. 5 11. (a) Despite appearance conflict between program (which provides person disability so severe do previous any other kind substantial gainful work) prohibits covered employers discriminating who including those only accommodation), two claims inherently point where courts should apply special negative such one applied below. There are many situations which comfortably exist side side. For example, since Administration (SSA) take into possibility accommodation" determining eligibility, plaintiff's job accommodation may well prove own (or jobs) without it. An individual might qualify SSA's administrative rules yet, circumstances, capable performing job. Or condition have changed over time, statement about made reflect capacities relevant employment decision. Thus, would legal permitting someone for, received, bring some limited highly unusual set circumstances. 10. (b) Nonetheless, cases earlier turn out genuinely claim. Summary defendant appropriate when fails make sufficient showing establish existence burden proof trial. Celotex Corp. Catrett, 477 317, 322. sworn assertion appears negate court require explanation apparent inconsistency. To defeat warrant juror's concluding that, assuming truth of, good faith belief in, statement, nonetheless 10 2. Here, parties opportunity trial present, contest, explanations discrepancy statements include were forum consider effect workplace ability reliable they made. 11 12. 120 F.3d 513, vacated remanded. Breyer, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion 1 NOTICE: This subject formal revision publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Decisions, Supreme States, Washington, D. 20543, typographical errors, order corrections goes press. 1008 2 CAROLYN CLEVELAND, PETITIONERv.POLICY CORPORATION 3 ON WRIT 4 [May 1999] Justice Breyer 6 "unable [her] work" "cannot engage exists national economy." §223(a) Act, forth U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). case asks whether law erects significantly inhibit simultaneously action discrimination "with §101, 104 Stat. 331, 12111(8). 7 We believe context, these seemingly divergent statutory contentions often consistent, each other. Thus pursuit, Nor success ADA. simply work. defendant's motion accommodation." 8 * disabling Carolyn (SSA). She also brought developed following way: 9 August 1993: began Systems. Her required background checks prospective employees System's clients. January 7, 1994: suffered stroke, damaged concentration, memory, language skills. 28, stated "disabled" work." App. 21. 12 April 11, having improved, returned reported fact SSA weeks later. 13 July Noting denied application. 14 15, fired Cleveland. 15 September 14, asked reconsider its 11th denial. doing so, said, "I terminated [by Systems] my I able since. continue disabled." Id., 46. later added "attempted return mid April," "worked three months," because "could longer job" light "condition." 47. 16 November request reconsideration. hearing, reiterating am disability," presenting new evidence extent injuries. 79. 17 29, 1995: awarded retroactive day 1994. 18 On 22, 1995, lawsuit. contended "terminat[ed]" reasonably "accommodat[ing] disability." 7. alleged requested, denied, accommodations training additional complete 96. And submitted supporting affidavit treating physician. 101. did evaluate merits, granted because, court's view, Cleveland, applying receiving conceded disabled. fact, concluded, now namely 19 affirmed Court's grant judgment. 513 (1997). wrote: 20 "[T]he social security claimant judicially asserting he 'qualified disability.' " 518. 21 noted "at theoretically conceivable circumstances necessarily mutually exclusive." 517. But "Cleveland consistently represented disabled, raise genuine issue material rebutting question nevertheless disability' claim." 518 519. 23 certiorari disagreement among Circuits upon benefits. Compare, e.g., Rascon U S West Communications, Inc., 143 1324, 1332 (CA10 1998) (application to, bringing, claim); Griffith Wal-Mart Stores, 135 376, 382 (CA6 (same), cert. pending, 1991; Swanks Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 116 582, 586 (CADC 1997) McNemar Disney Store, 91 610, 618 620 (CA3 1996) (applying judicial estoppel bar bringing ADA), 519 1115 (1997), Kennedy Applause, 90 1477, 1481 1482 (CA9 (declining declared total qualified disability). II 24 both help individuals disabilities, different ways. monetary every insured "is 423(a)(1). defines "disability" 25 "inability activity reason physical mental impairment expected result death lasted last continuous period less than months." §423(d)(1)(A). 26 individual's impairment, we supra, 1, 27 "of severity [she] cannot, considering age, education, experience, economy ." §423(d)(2)(A). 28 seeks eliminate unwarranted guarantee equal provide Nation benefit their consequently increased productivity. See, 12101(a)(8),(9). "against individual." §12112(a). "qualified disability" "who 29 here ways statutes interact. involve, interaction either us statutes, Federal Employers' Liability 45 51 seq. involve directly conflicting purely factual matters, "The red/green," can/cannot arm above head." representation differs implies context-related conclusion, Act." our consideration latter leaves related former, factual, found 30 concerns It requires review Appeals decision upholding ground 's "represent[ation] disabled" created "rebuttable presumption" "judicially esto[p]" "for question," accommodation, F.3d, thought, essence, Acts incorporate propositions, effort prevent embody conflict, used presumption, believed ordinarily like successfully 31 however, despite arises here. That there 32 thing, noted, individual" Reasonable include: 33 "job restructuring, part-time modified schedules, reassignment vacant position, acquisition modification equipment devices, adjustment modifications examinations, materials policies, provision readers interpreters, similar accommodations." 12111(9)(B). 34 By way contrast, determines purposes, account, nor need applicant refer applies SSDI. Memorandum Daniel L. Skoler, Associate Comm'r Hearings Appeals, SSA, Administrative Judges, reprinted Practice Guide, §15C[9], pp. 401 402 (1998). omission reflects facts receives more 2.5 million year; resources limited; matter disputed workplace-specific matters; misjudgment detailed, fact-specific deprive seriously critical financial support statute provide. Brief Amici Curiae n. 2, 13. 35 another process large number claims, administers five-step procedure embodies presumptions availability, interrelation. asks: 36 Step One: Are you presently working? (If ineligible.) CFR 404.1520(b) 37 Two: Do "severe impairment," i.e., "significantly limits" your basic activities? not, §404.1520(c). 38 Three: Does "mee[t] equa[l]" specific (and fairly lengthy) list? eligible more.) §§404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526. 39 Four: If meet listed "past work?" §404.1520(e). 40 Five: work," then jobs significant numbers economy? eligible.) §§404.1520(f ), 404.1560(c). 41 embodied questions particularly necessary produce Three's list, which, Government tells us, accounts approximately 60 percent all awards, see Tr. Oral Arg. grow administer system efficiently. inevitably simplify, eliminating differences potentially particular Hence, remain "perform[ing] Further, sometimes grants working. facilitate person's reentry workforce, authorizes 9-month trial-work during recipients receive full 422(c), 423(e)(1); 404.1592 §404.1592a (benefits available 15-month depending earnings). Improvement condition, while immediately lead terminate nature change 43 Finally, if merely awarded, inconsistency theory sort normally tolerated system. Our ordinary recognize sure advance succeed, permit "set defense alternately hypothetically," "state separate defenses party regardless consistency." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(e)(2). respect differ. (And, leave contradictions it.) 44 examples, "some circumstances." "fails bear trial." 322 (1986). bears is, "who, appear offer explanation. reason, hold contradiction Rather, proffer 46 lower courts, somewhat comparable They held virtual unanimity create contradicting his (by, say, filing flatly contradicts party's deposition) explaining attempting resolve disparity. Colantuoni Alfred Calcagni Sons, (CA1 1994); Brine, 85 1002, 1011 (CA2 1996); Hackman Valley Fair, 932 F.2d 239, 241 1991); Barwick Corp., 736 946, 960 (CA4 1984); Albertson T. J. Stevenson 749 223, 228 (CA5 Davidson Jones Development Co. Elmore 921 1343, 1352 Slowiak Land O'Lakes, 987 1293, 1297 (CA7 1993); Camfield Tires, Inc. Michelin Tire 719 1361, 1365 1366 (CA8 1983); Allied Mutual Ins. 952 262, 266 Franks Nimmo, 796 1230, 1237 1986); Tippens 805 949, 953 954 (CA11 Pyramid Securities Ltd. IB Resolution, 924 1114, 1123 (CADC), 502 822 (1991); Sinskey Pharmacia Opthalmics, 982 494, 498 (CA 1992), 508 912 (1993). Although most (as endorse cases, it), insistence warranted here, involves conclusion. When faced "total like, elements III 47 brief Court, explains "totally first statements, says, "were Petitioner 43. Moreover, "accurate statements" examined "in made." Ibid. explanations, form appropriate. Accordingly, vacate remand further proceedings opinion. 48 ordered.

Category: 7