Bagwell v. Morgan County Commission - Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Facts: Katrina Bagwell ("Bagwell") was hired to work as a groundskeeper at West Park, a community recreational facility. The job description set forth a long list of manual and other related functions, including landscaping, sweeping, picking up trash, cleaning pavilions, preparing athletic fields, installing irrigation systems, painting, plumbing, housekeeping, and other similar functions. The job description also stated that the position entailed "very heavy work demands".
However, Bagwell suffered from an injury when her right kneecap was crushed in eight places and she suffered a broken femur from a motorcycle accident. After she tried to return from FMLA leave, a county commissioner noted she walked with a limp and said Bagwell would have to be cleared by a county doctor before returning to work. After an evaluation, it was concluded that Bagwell could not walk or stand more than one-third of a work day and had balance problems on uneven surfaces. After a review of the job description, it was determined that Bagwell was not medically qualified to be a groundskeeper and was subsequently terminated.
Bagwell brought an employment discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Rehab Act against the Morgan County Commission ("Commission"). However, the district court granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the tasks set forth in the job description were essential and expected to be performed.
Holding: The Court began its analysis of the claim with a reference to the ADA which prohibits an employer from discriminating against 'a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.' A valid failure to accommodate claim under the ADA requires a showing that the plaintiff is disabled, is a qualified individual according to the ADA, and was discriminated against by way of the defendant's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
A qualified individual with a disability is someone "who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." Consequently, if the plaintiff is unable to perform an essential function of the job, even with an accommodation, the plaintiff is, by definition, not a qualified individual and therefore not covered by the ADA.
In this case, Bagwell argued that the essential functions of her job did not include all the duties listed in the job description and therefore she was unlawfully discriminated against because of her inability to complete some tasks that were rarely (if ever) performed. The Court noted that an essential function is a fundamental job duty of a particular position. The question of whether a function is essential is examined on a case by case basis. As for reasonable accommodations, readers might recall that an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a known disability, unless it would result in undue hardship. Although some of the tasks listed in the job description were "marginal" or rarely (if ever) performed by Bagwell, the fact that they were all listed in the job description indicated that the employer expected the person holding the position of groundskeeper to be capable of performing those tasks as needed (and were therefore "essential"). In particular, an employer's judgment is among the factors considered by a court when determining whether a task is essential, and that judgment is given substantial weight. Consequently, the Court of Appeals held that the district court did not err in finding that the "essential functions" included all those listed in the job description.
Since Bagwell was unable to perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation, she was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA. Even if Bagwell was able to use an ATV or adaptive equipment to do some of her work, the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court and held that she could not do these job functions safely and consistently.
Judgment: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the employer and held that even if some job tasks were rarely performed, they were still "essential" under the ADA and therefore the employee's inability to do these tasks (with or without reasonable accommodation) meant she was not protected under the ADA.
The Takeaway: The fact that this opinion was not designated for publication should be an indication that the opinion was not breaking new ground here or was not clarifying a disagreement among its district courts. Instead, this was a case where the Court looked at the facts, applied the law, and reasoned that because the employer listed several job functions in the job's description, the employee's inability to do these tasks (with or without reasonable accommodation) resulted in no valid ADA claim existing. I did want to highlight this case, in particular, for readers to recognize that as this Court noted, the question of whether a job function is essential is decided on a case by case basis. As a result, I would not necessarily take this opinion and apply it repeatedly to other related ADA claims. Depending the facts of other ADA claims, a court might reach the opposite conclusion.
Majority Opinion Judge: Per curiam decision
Date: January 18, 2017
Opinion: hr.cch.com/eld/BagwellMorgan011817.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment