Brien Hill v. Associates for Renewal in Education
897 F.3d 232
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Brien Hill, a single-leg amputee, worked for Associates for Renewal in Education (ARE) in a three-story building without an elevator; he previously received accommodations including assignment to a lower-level classroom.
- After a May 2007 injury to his stump and prosthesis, Hill requested two accommodations: (1) reassignment to a lower floor and (2) a classroom aide to assist with supervision and reduce prolonged standing.
- ARE reassigned Hill to the third floor and denied an aide; Hill alleged daily follow-ups and submitted medical documentation; he also experienced disciplinary actions and was terminated in December 2008.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to ARE on two ADA claims (hostile work environment and denial of an aide) but denied summary judgment on the lower-floor accommodation; Hill tried three ADA claims at trial and won on the lower-floor failure-to-accommodate claim, receiving damages.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the hostile-work-environment claim but reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the classroom-aide failure-to-accommodate claim, finding a triable issue of fact about whether an aide was a reasonable accommodation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill's hostile-work-environment ADA claim survives summary judgment | ARE’s reassignment and denial of aide created an abusive environment affecting employment conditions | ARE argued Hill failed to show severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct; district court also found insufficient facts | Affirmed dismissal — conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute hostile work environment |
| Whether denial of a classroom aide was a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA | Hill argued an aide would reduce prolonged standing, pain, and risk of injury while supervising students, and thus was related to his disability and job duties | ARE argued Hill could perform essential functions (albeit with pain), that an aide might not prevent falls or resolve stair-climbing issues, and that Hill previously claimed a lower floor solved problems | Reversed district court — evidence, viewed favorably to Hill, created a triable issue that an aide could be a reasonable accommodation; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether an employer must eliminate pain to satisfy ADA (related to denial of aide) | Hill contended forcing him to work in pain when an accommodation could alleviate it violates the ADA | ARE relied on Hill’s ability to perform duties despite pain to justify denial | Court held a jury could find that requiring an employee to work in pain when a reasonable accommodation could alleviate it violates the ADA |
| Whether the district court’s prior summary-judgment ruling made the jury’s lower-floor verdict duplicative (remedy issue) | Hill sought relief for ARE’s failure(s) to accommodate | ARE argued no separate error on aide denial; concurrence worried jury may have compensated for aide denial at trial despite summary judgment | Concurring judge noted potential double-recovery issues and left remedy sequencing to the district court on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (accommodation must be related to the limitation that rendered the person disabled)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment standard: conduct must be severe or pervasive and both objectively and subjectively hostile)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (workplace conduct must be extreme to alter employment terms and constitute a hostile environment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and inferences for nonmoving party)
- U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (plaintiff need only show accommodation seems reasonable on its face; employer must show undue hardship)
- Marshall v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 130 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (employer may violate ADA by forcing disabled employee to work under painful conditions when accommodation could alleviate the pain)