Delores Frazier-White v. David Gee
818 F.3d 1249
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff was a community service officer at Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO); injured at work July 2010 and placed on light-duty status through June 2011.
- HCSO SOP 213.00 limits light-duty to 270 days in a two-year period and requires a medical due process hearing if exceeded; Plaintiff exceeded that limit.
- Multiple medical evaluations: several doctors initially discharged Plaintiff to MMI with no restrictions, later MRI/consults found cervical disc herniation and cord compression; Plaintiff ultimately had spinal fusion in June 2011 and later received SSDI.
- Plaintiff requested an extension of light duty (without specifying duration) and asked generally about doing “something else” but did not apply for specific vacant positions or identify timeframes/functional abilities to perform them.
- HCSO held a May 24, 2011 due-process hearing and terminated Plaintiff (non-disciplinary) for inability to perform essential CSO functions; Plaintiff later sued under the ADA and FCRA.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendant; Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding Plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” because she sought an indefinite/light-duty extension and failed to identify a reasonable reassignment or accommodation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff was a “qualified individual” under the ADA/FCRA (i.e., could perform essential functions with reasonable accommodation) | Plaintiff sought an indefinite extension of light duty or reassignment to another HCSO position | Plaintiff could not perform essential duties and did not identify a reasonable accommodation or a specific vacant position she could do | Court: Not qualified; accommodation requests unreasonable or unsupported |
| Whether an indefinite extension of light duty is a reasonable accommodation | Plaintiff requested continued light duty to obtain care and recover | HCSO policy forbids permanent light-duty; indefinite extension lacks timeframe and is unreasonable | Court: Indefinite extension unreasonable as a matter of law |
| Whether reassignment obligation was triggered | Plaintiff argued reassignment to another unspecified vacancy would be a reasonable accommodation | HCSO notes Plaintiff never applied or identified a specific vacant position or how she could perform its essential duties | Court: Reassignment unsupported; plaintiff failed to identify a specific position or show ability to perform it |
| Whether HCSO failed to engage in the interactive process or retaliated for requesting accommodation | Plaintiff contends HCSO didn’t sufficiently engage in identifying accommodations and terminated her for requesting them | HCSO repeatedly notified Plaintiff about accommodations and application process; Plaintiff’s requests came after notice of impending dismissal and lacked specifics; termination was based on SOP 213.00 eligibility | Court: No interactive-process or retaliation liability; any failure attributable to Plaintiff and no causal link shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (ADA requires ability to perform essential job functions now or in the immediate future)
- Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2007) (FCRA claims analyzed under same framework as ADA)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (employee bears burden to identify reasonable accommodation)
- Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens & Home, Inc., 167 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 1999) (employee must request specific accommodation to trigger employer’s duty)
- Sutton v. Lader, 185 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 1999) (employer not required to create a light-duty position)
- Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 1997) (employee not entitled to accommodation of choice, only reasonable one)
- Duckett v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 120 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 1997) (qualification and accommodation assessed by reference to specific position)
- Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282 (11th Cir. 1997) (lack of reasonable accommodation undermines claim that employer failed in interactive process)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (U.S. 1999) (SSDI receipt does not automatically bar ADA claim but requires explanation for inconsistencies)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation required for ADA retaliation claims)