David Atkins v. Ken Salazar, Secretary, 455 F. App'x 385

Atkins, a National Park Service park ranger with Type I diabetes, was transferred to a staff ranger due to a medical review finding potential safety risks in his duty performance.
NPS adopted 5 C.F.R. Part 339 medical standards in 1999, including the Endocrine and Metabolic Systems Standard, which lists insulin-dependent diabetes as potentially disqualifying and requires individualized, case-by-case determinations.
A Medical Review Board (MRB) conducted reviews in 2000, 2002 (waiver with accommodations), 2003 (second waiver), and 2005, ultimately finding Atkins not medically qualified in 2005 due to fluctuating glucose and risk of hypoglycemia.
MRB concerns centered on Atkins’s HbA1c readings, episodes of hypoglycemia, and whether Atkins could sensibly detect or prevent lows, given the hazards of law-enforcement work where quick judgment is needed.
Following the 2005 MRB decision, Interior revoked Atkins’s law-enforcement commission and offered a non-law-enforcement staff ranger position in 2006, which Atkins accepted.
Atkins pursued a Rehabilitation Act claim; Interior moved for summary judgment, arguing business-necessity defense, which the district court granted; Atkins appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte on the business-necessity defense	Atkins contends there was no notice or argument on the defense in the initial briefing.	Interior argues the defense was argued in briefing and Atkins had opportunity to respond; sua sponte ruling was proper and harmless.	Sua sponte summary judgment was harmless and proper on the record.
Whether Interior's medical standards are job-related and consistent with business necessity	Standards improperly screen out diabetics and were not shown to be job-related or necessary.	Standards are uniformly applied, tied to duties of park rangers, and promote public and officer safety; individualized assessments are used.	Yes; standards are job-related and substantially promote business necessity.

Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 203 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2000) (consideration of risk and magnitude of harm in safety-based standards)
Rizzo v. Children’s World Learning Centers, Inc., 84 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 1996) (direct evidence precludes McDonnell Douglas framework)
Loughman v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 1997 WL 759294 (5th Cir. Oct. 28, 1997) (notice requirement for sua sponte summary judgment)
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d 1388 (5th Cir. 1994) (harmless-error approach to sua sponte rulings without notice)
Kapche v. City of San Antonio, 304 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2002) (individualized assessment required for diabetics in safety roles)
Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (definition of job-related qualifications and business necessity)