Derrick Dillard v. City of Austin, 837 F.3d 557

Dillard, a Street and Drainage Maintenance Senior for the City of Austin, suffered back and shoulder injuries in a 2011 on-the-job car accident and was initially on FMLA and then the City’s Return to Work Program.
After medical releases in early 2012 limited him to “administrative duty,” the City placed Dillard in a temporary Administrative Assistant position (which he lacked the formal clerical experience to meet) and provided on-the-job typing/computer training and shadowing.
While in the administrative role (May–Oct 2012), the City documented repeated misconduct and poor performance: absenteeism/tardiness, misreporting hours, sleeping, personal calls, playing computer games, and failure to use offered training; Dillard does not dispute these facts.
Dillard received an unsatisfactory evaluation, admitted at a pretermination meeting that criticisms were accurate, and was terminated October 26, 2012; he then sued under the ADA and parallel Texas law for discriminatory discharge and failure to reasonably accommodate.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Dillard produced no evidence that the City’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual, and (2) Dillard failed to show the interactive accommodation process broke down because of the employer rather than the employee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was motivated by disability	Dillard argues termination was due to disability	City contends termination was for misconduct and poor performance in the administrative role	Court held City’s nondiscriminatory reasons uncontroverted; no pretext shown, so no discriminatory discharge
Whether City failed to reasonably accommodate after placement	Dillard argues City should have continued interactive process and sought alternate placements as his condition improved	City says it provided an accommodation (the admin role), training, and that Dillard failed to make good-faith efforts in that role	Court held employer met accommodation obligations; interactive-process breakdown was caused by Dillard’s failure to try and not by the City

EEOC v. LHC Group, Inc., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir.) (burden-shifting framework and plaintiff’s obligation to show pretext)
Reed v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 218 F.3d 477 (5th Cir.) (employer need not provide indefinite leave as accommodation)
Taylor v. Principal Fin. Grp., Inc., 93 F.3d 155 (5th Cir.) (employer’s accommodation obligation triggered when employee requests accommodation)
Chevron Phillips Chem. Co. v. EEOC, 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir.) (interactive process requires good-faith collaboration)
Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc., 178 F.3d 731 (5th Cir.) (employer not liable when employee causes breakdown of interactive process)