Andrew Amsel v. Texas Water Development Bd, 464 F. App'x 395

Amsel worked at TWDB from 1997 to 2007 with telecommuting accommodations due to serious health issues.
In 2005 TWDB created a back-up position for Amsel after medical input suggested reduced stress and flexibility; Amsel accepted.
Amsel’s conditions include ischemic heart disease, angina, cancer history, and a digestive disorder affecting mobility and daily tasks.
From 2006 onward, Amsel faced reduced telecommuting hours and in-office requirements; he exhausted FMLA leave by 2007.
TWDB eliminated two positions in 2007, including Amsel’s, effective August 31, 2007; Amsel then sought disability benefits.
The district court granted summary judgment for TWDB on all claims; the Fifth Circuit affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disability discrimination under ADA/Rehabilitation Act	Amsel was qualified with reasonable accommodation and was discharged due to disability.	Amsel was not qualified at the time of discharge due to inability to attend in-office work and indefinite accommodation.	Amsel not qualified at discharge; discrimination claim fails.
FMLA retaliation	Discharge linked to protected FMLA leave and activities.	No causal link; timing insufficient; no retaliation established.	No causation shown; no FMLA retaliation.

Daigle v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 70 F.3d 394 (5th Cir. 1995) (prima facie elements for ADA claims; qualified individual concept)
Rodriguez v. ConAgra Grocery Prods. Co., 436 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2006) (ADA standard; reasonable accommodations analysis)
Rogers v. Int'l Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 759 (5th Cir. 1996) (reasonable accommodation and in-office requirements)
Hypes v. First Commerce Corp., 134 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 1998) (regular attendance as a job qualification)
Breeden v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity standard in retaliation cases)
Mauder v. Metro. Transit Auth., 446 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2006) (causal inference in retaliation claims; pretext framework)