964 F.3d 1014
11th Cir.2020Background
- Christine D’Onofrio, deaf since birth, worked at Costco for over 20 years; beginning in 2012 she reported communication problems with new general manager Alan Pack (mumbling, refusing written communications, rude conduct).
- D’Onofrio wrote to Costco’s CEO; Costco investigated, met with her (with an interpreter), and she requested (1) Pack’s transfer and (2) deaf-culture training for managers.
- Costco implemented multiple measures: installed Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) devices in two convenient warehouse locations, paid for VRI service, provided VRI training, conducted a March 1, 2013 deaf-culture training for managers (including Pack), and temporarily designated a three-manager communication team for D’Onofrio.
- After Alan Holliday transferred in as a new supervisor (he missed the March training), disciplinary meetings occurred in 2013; D’Onofrio often refused to use VRI or turned it off; she was suspended and then terminated on October 23, 2013 (an on‑site interpreter was provided at the termination meeting).
- D’Onofrio sued under the Florida Civil Rights Act (parallel to the ADA). A jury found Costco liable for failure to accommodate and awarded emotional and punitive damages; the district court granted Costco’s renewed JMOL; the Eleventh Circuit majority affirmed JMOL; Judge Wilson dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D'Onofrio) | Defendant's Argument (Costco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Costco failed to provide a "reasonable accommodation" under the FCRA/ADA | VRI alone was inadequate; training ineffective (later managers not trained); three-manager team discontinued; D'Onofrio needed written communication and on-site interpreters | Costco provided reasonable accommodations (VRI + on-site interpreters for group meetings + deaf-culture training + voluntary three-manager arrangement); plaintiff refused or obstructed VRI use | JMOL for Costco affirmed: evidence insufficient for reasonable-accommodation verdict; employer met obligations |
| Whether employee made a sufficiently specific accommodation request to trigger duties | D'Onofrio argues her letter and meetings communicated need for accommodations beyond lip-reading and sought training and other measures | Costco concedes there was a specific request re: Pack and training but contends it responded appropriately; transfer of supervisor is not a required accommodation | Court accepted that D'Onofrio made specific requests but held Costco reasonably responded; transfer not required |
| Whether VRI constituted a reasonable accommodation in practice | VRI was not effective for floor interactions and group settings; on-site interpreters should have been used more | VRI is an effective, on-demand accommodation (useful in many settings); Costco also provided on-site interpreters in key group situations; plaintiff often refused to use VRI | VRI (combined with on-site interpreters when used) was reasonable; absence of testimony that VRI failed supports JMOL for Costco |
| Whether Costco failed the interactive process by not training later supervisors or discontinuing voluntary measures | Failure to train Holliday and ending the three-manager circle exacerbated communication breakdown | Holliday had deaf‑culture familiarity; Costco’s training was tailored and substantial; three-manager circle was voluntary and was discontinued because it was being misused; employer may discontinue nonrequired accommodations | Court held no failure of the interactive process; employer’s training and measures were reasonable and discontinuation of voluntary accommodations permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Abel v. Dubberly, 210 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for JMOL)
- Home Design Servs., Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes, Inc., 825 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2016) (JMOL legal sufficiency standard)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (JMOL requires no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury verdict)
- Samson v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 746 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2014) (FCRA disability claims analyzed under ADA framework)
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., LLC, 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (failure to accommodate is discriminatory conduct)
- Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens & Home, Inc., 167 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 1999) (employee must make a specific accommodation request)
- Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 1997) (employee responsibility for breakdown of interactive process; employer need not provide preferred accommodation)
- Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, 112 F.3d 1522 (11th Cir. 1997) (employer not required to continue accommodations that exceed ADA requirements)
- Gaul v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 134 F.3d 576 (3d Cir. 1998) (transfer of supervisor is not a required reasonable accommodation)
- Batson v. Salvation Army, 897 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff must identify a specific instance when an accommodation was denied)