Aubrey v. Koppes, 975 F.3d 995

Background

Kimberly Aubrey worked for the Weld County Clerk and Recorder; she developed posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) in Dec. 2014, was hospitalized and rehabilitated, and recovered faster than initially expected.
Aubrey exhausted 12 weeks of FMLA but the County kept her position open without pay; Clerk Koppes had discretion to extend leave and did so, but the County later scheduled a pre-termination meeting on April 16, 2015 with <24 hours’ notice.
At the meeting Aubrey said she might be able to return with accommodations: (1) brief additional time to obtain a neurologist’s fitness-for-duty certification, (2) retraining, or (3) reassignment to an open Office Tech II position; she was not given the County’s usual medical form or time to obtain documentation.
The County terminated Aubrey effective April 20, 2015; she was cleared to return by a neurologist on June 4, 2015 and the temporary employee remained in Aubrey’s slot through mid-June.
Aubrey sued under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act alleging failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the County; the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to accommodate	Aubrey requested plausible accommodations (short additional leave, retraining, reassignment) and County failed to engage in the interactive process	County had legitimate need to fill the post and could not wait indefinitely; Aubrey lacked required medical certification by the hearing	Reversed: triable issues exist — jury could find County failed to engage in the interactive process and accommodations were plausible
Disability discrimination (disparate treatment)	Termination was based on disability and County’s stated reasons were inconsistent/false (misstated limitations, rushed process)	Termination was for non-discriminatory reasons: inability to perform essential functions and undue hardship to keep position open	Reversed: plaintiff raised sufficient evidence of pretext and discriminatory animus to survive summary judgment
Retaliation for requesting accommodation	Firing shortly after accommodation request shows retaliation	County fired for inability to perform job and operational necessity, not because she requested accommodations	Affirmed: plaintiff failed to show employer’s reason was pretext for retaliatory motive
Employer duty to engage in interactive process	Plaintiff: County’s conduct (short notice, no follow-up, no medical form) shows failure to engage	County: the April 16 meeting satisfied required process; decision based on lack of fitness-for-duty certification	Court: duty exists; factual record permits jury to find County failed to engage in good-faith interactive process

Key Cases Cited

Lincoln v. BNSF Ry., 900 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2018) (framework for ADA failure-to-accommodate elements and burdens)
Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 1999) (interactive process requirement and guidance on reasonable accommodations)
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (standards for assessing facial reasonableness of accommodations)
Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (reconciling sworn disability-benefits statements with ADA claims)
Punt v. Kelly Servs., 862 F.3d 1040 (10th Cir. 2017) (leave can be a reasonable accommodation; burden-shifting on accommodation reasonableness)
Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 2004) (interactive dialogue requires good-faith communications)
Osborne v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 798 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2015) (analysis of reasonable-accommodation proof and burdens)
Rascon v. US W. Commc’ns, Inc., 143 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 1998) (interpretation of disability-benefit definitions vis-à-vis ADA claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discriminatory-animus claims)