Credeur v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Office of the Attorney General
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11269
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Credeur, a DOJ litigation attorney, had a kidney transplant and later complications; she requested and initially received a temporary work‑from‑home accommodation to recover.
- DOJ’s October 2013 accommodation required periodic medical updates and aimed at reintegration to regular office hours; Credeur missed multiple required updates.
- Medical opinions conflicted in early 2014: two physicians indicated she could return to the office part‑time, while one recommended six months out of the office. DOJ required clarification and thereafter ordered limited in‑office attendance (3–4 hours/day) and forbade working from home long‑term.
- DOJ issued a Last Chance Agreement documenting performance and administrative deficiencies and requiring on‑site hours; Credeur refused to sign, took/was changed to leave, sought to work from home again, and DOJ denied that request.
- Credeur sued under the ADA and Louisiana law for failure to accommodate, disability‑based harassment, and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for DOJ and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Credeur was a "qualified individual" able to perform essential job functions (attendance) | Credeur argued she could perform litigation duties from home as she had previously and that DOJ should accommodate remote work | DOJ argued regular on‑site attendance is an essential function of litigation attorneys and long‑term telework was infeasible | Held for DOJ: regular office attendance is an essential function; Credeur did not raise a genuine fact dispute that she could perform essential duties remotely |
| Failure to accommodate | Credeur argued DOJ unreasonably refused her preferred accommodation (continued telework) | DOJ argued it provided reasonable accommodations aimed at reintegration and had business reasons (teamwork, supervision, access) to require on‑site work | Held for DOJ: accommodation offered was reasonable and ADA does not require employer to provide employee’s preferred accommodation |
| Disability‑based harassment / hostile work environment | Credeur claimed meeting, required in‑office hours, criticism, threats of termination, pay/leave changes and alleged pressure to falsify payroll created harassment | DOJ argued the conduct was routine supervision, performance management, and legitimate administrative action, not severe or pervasive harassment | Held for DOJ: conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment |
| Retaliation | Credeur contended adverse actions followed her protected activity and were retaliatory | DOJ asserted actions (performance counseling, attendance requirements, LWOP) were nondiscriminatory, based on medical evidence and performance, and not materially adverse | Held for DOJ: no materially adverse actions shown and no causal evidence of retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. LHC Group, Inc., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment and discussion of essential functions)
- Griffin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011) (reasonable‑accommodation principles)
- Neely v. PSEG Texas, Ltd. P’ship, 735 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements of failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
- E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (telework and employee testimony limitations on defining essential functions)
- Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs., Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001) (standards for disability‑based harassment/hostile work environment)