490 F. App'x 281
11th Cir.2012Background
- Ivey, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for First Quality on her ADA discrimination claim.
- Ivey alleged disability from carpal tunnel syndrome and claimed First Quality denied light duty and terminated her.
- Evidence included a letter offering accommodations (rotate every 15 minutes, step platform, reassignment) and work status reports with various limitations.
- First Quality argued Ivey could not perform the essential functions of her job even with accommodations and that only temporary light duty was available.
- The district court held Ivey disabled but not a qualified individual; it found proposed accommodations unreasonable and that reassignment was not shown to be a reasonable accommodation.
- A hostile work environment claim was raised in opposition papers but not in the complaint, and the district court did not address it; appeal affirmed.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADAAA applies and Ivey is disabled/qualified | Ivey is disabled under ADAAA; could perform with accommodations | First Quality contends she cannot perform essential functions, with or without accommodations | No reversible error; Ivey not qualified with proposed accommodations |
| Whether Ivey can perform essential functions with/without accommodations | Accommodation would enable essential functions | No reasonable accommodation available to permit essential functions | Ivey failed to show a reasonable accommodation enabling essential functions |
| Whether proposed accommodations were reasonable or reassignment required | Rotating duties, step platform, or reassignment to a vacancy would be reasonable | Rotations/step platform not shown to enable engagement in essential functions; reassignment not proven available | No reasonable accommodation or reassignment established |
| Whether hostile work environment claim was properly raised | Pro se status should permit consideration | Claim not in complaint; not properly raised at summary judgment | District court did not address hostile environment claim; properly not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., LLC, 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (prima facie framework for ADA claims; general standard for summary judgment)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (employer need not eliminate all marginal functions; reassignment not compelled absent vacancies)
- Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2000) (employer not required to accommodate in any manner preferred by employee; reasonable accommodations vary)
- D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (essential function determination case-by-case; factors beyond job description)
- Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (prior accommodations don’t make new accommodation reasonable)