119 A.3d 146
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Adkins, a PRMC storekeeper, developed left hip injury requiring surgery in 2011 and was restricted to sedentary work.
- PRMC granted 14 additional weeks of FMLA leave and advised Adkins to seek other positions; storekeeper position was filled.
- Adkins applied to numerous vacant PRMC positions but was rejected for all; her extended leave expired and she was terminated in Feb. 2012.
- Adkins filed a Maryland MFEPA complaint in Feb. 2013 alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate.
- Circuit Court granted summary judgment for PRMC, finding Adkins disabled but not otherwise qualified and that she failed to request accommodation; also found no genuine dispute on Count 2 and limited dispute on Count 3.
- On appeal, court reversed in part and affirmed in part, concluding genuine disputes of material fact persisted about notice, individualized assessment, eligibility for vacant positions, and disclosure of vacancies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was PRMC's failure to accommodate disputed factually? | Adkins argues she was a qualified individual with a disability and PRMC failed to accommodate. | PRMC contends she was not qualified for any vacant position even with reasonable accommodation and that no accommodation was available. | Genuine disputes of material fact existed on accommodation and qualification. |
| Did PRMC fail to engage in an interactive process/individualized assessment? | Adkins asserts PRMC did not engage in an interactive process to identify an accommodation. | PRMC argues no federal interactive-process requirement; it conducted or attempted an individualized assessment under COMAR. | Material factual disputes about notice and individualized assessment remained; summary judgment improper. |
| Did the 100 percent healed demand for full duty constitute per se discrimination? | Adkins contends that requiring full-duty release was a discrimination against a disabled employee. | PRMC posits it was a required, not a per se discrimination, condition tied to job function. | Not per se discrimination; issue fact-dependent. |
| Was there a genuine dispute about whether Adkins could perform essential functions of a vacant position? | Adkins identified vacant roles she could perform with/without accommodation and sought reassignment. | PRMC argued most vacancies were beyond her capabilities and did not consider inappropriate reassignment. | Genuine disputes existed; cannot grant summary judgment on |
| Was the denial of production of vacancy lists proper, and is discovery of vacancies necessary for a prima facie case? | Vacancies are critical to prove a reasonable accommodation; list should be produced. | PRMC argued insufficient relevance and scope; argued discovery abuse or overbreadth. | Court abused denial of vacancy discovery; remand to compel production of vacancies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridgely v. Montgomery County, 164 Md. App. 214 (Md. App. 2005) (three-part prima facie test for disability discrimination)
- Gaither v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 94 Md. App. 569 (Md. App. 1993) (definition of a ‘qualified individual with a disability’)
- Meade v. Shangri-La P'ship, 424 Md. 476 (Md. 2012) (ADA Amendments Act interpretation and disability broadening)
- U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (S. Ct. 2002) (reasonableness of accommodations; interaction with medical eligibility)
- Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas City, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2000) (reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation)