Bell v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, 972 F.3d 21

Bell, a store manager at O’Reilly, has Tourette’s, ADHD, and major depression causing motor tics, concentration problems, and exhaustion.
After two shift leaders left, Bell worked nearly 100 hours/week; his symptoms worsened and he sought medical help.
His provider submitted a fitness-for-duty form seeking an accommodation: limit scheduled hours to 9 hours/day, 5 days/week (restricting scheduled hours but permitting unscheduled hours if needed); O’Reilly refused and later terminated him.
Bell sued under the ADA and Maine Human Rights Act; a jury found for O’Reilly at trial.
On appeal Bell challenged a jury instruction that said a plaintiff must prove he "needed an accommodation to perform the essential functions of his job."
The First Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial on the failure-to-accommodate claim, taxing costs to Bell.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction standard for failure-to-accommodate	Bell: employee need not be unable to perform essential functions; difficulty alone can justify requested accommodation	O’Reilly: instruction was correct or functionally equivalent to correct law	Court: instruction was erroneous; employee may request accommodation even if able to perform with difficulty; vacated and remanded
Prejudice from the erroneous instruction	Bell: error narrowed employer liability and prejudiced his case	O’Reilly: no prejudice — instruction was equivalent or no jury could find Bell could perform with accommodation	Court: error was prejudicial on this record; new trial required
Whether requested restriction would defeat essential-job-function requirement	Bell: restriction capped scheduled hours but allowed unscheduled hours; could perform if necessary	O’Reilly: store managers must work ≥50 hours/week; restriction would prevent performing essential functions	Court: factual dispute appropriate for jury; reasonable jury could find for Bell

Thomas & Betts Corp. v. New Albertson's, Inc., 915 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2019) (standard of review for preserved instructional error)
Richardson v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 594 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2010) (treating MHRA coextensive with the ADA)
Sepúlveda-Vargas v. Caribbean Rests., LLC, 888 F.3d 549 (1st Cir. 2018) (elements of failure-to-accommodate claim)
Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (employee may seek accommodation despite employer satisfaction with prior performance)
United States v. Pizarro, 772 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 2014) (interpretation of jury instructions' natural reading)
Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011) (prejudice standard for new trial due to instructional error)
Trahan v. Wayfair Me., LLC, 957 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2020) (proposed accommodation must be effective so employee can perform essential functions)