Earl Cook v. UPS, 21-1693

Earl Cook, a UPS preload supervisor, suffered a stroke and had a 20-pound lifting restriction.
UPS job description for the preload supervisor required lifting up to 70 pounds; Cook admitted he sometimes lifted >20 lbs while filling in, shifting packages, or cleaning up.
Cook sued under the ADA (and dependent state-law claims) alleging failure to accommodate and/or wrongful termination; the district court granted summary judgment for UPS.
Cook proposed two accommodations: (1) have other employees perform any lifting over 20 lbs, or (2) reassign him to a package data supervisor position.
UPS argued those accommodations were unreasonable because splitting essential lifting tasks is not required and the other position was not vacant (reassignment would bump another employee).
The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for UPS, holding lifting >20 lbs was an essential job function and the proposed accommodations were not reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cook was a "qualified individual" under the ADA	Cook claimed he could perform job with accommodation	UPS argued Cook could not perform essential functions (lifting >20 lbs)	Court: Not qualified absent a reasonable accommodation enabling lifting >20 lbs
Whether lifting >20 lbs is an essential function of preload supervisor	Cook pointed to collective bargaining provisions and argued he should be excused from heavy lifting	UPS relied on job description, Cook's own admissions, and supervisor testimony that lifting large packages is required	Court: Lifting large packages is an essential function; employer's judgment entitled to deference
Whether requiring coworkers to perform heavy lifts is a reasonable accommodation	Cook proposed redistributing lifting tasks to others	UPS argued employer need not change or split essential functions across employees	Court: Unreasonable—employer not required to divide essential functions among multiple employees
Whether reassignment to package data supervisor was required	Cook sought reassignment as accommodation	UPS showed the package data supervisor position was filled; reassignment would require bumping another employee	Court: Unavailable—employer not required to reassign if it would bump another employee

Ballengee v. CBS Broad., 968 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2020) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
J.D. ex rel. Doherty v. Colonial Williamsburg Found., 925 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2019) (definition of genuine dispute of material fact)
Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2015) (nonmoving party must present more than speculation)
Laird v. Fairfax Cnty., 978 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 2020) (failure-to-accommodate requires plaintiff to be a qualified individual)
Reynolds v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 2012) (wrongful termination ADA claim requires qualified individual)
Wirtes v. City of Newport News, 996 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2021) (definition of "qualified individual")
Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs., Inc. of Cal., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1994) (two-step test: essential functions and reasonable accommodation)
Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 2015) (what constitutes an essential job function)
Elledge v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, 979 F.3d 1004 (4th Cir. 2020) (employer’s discretion on accommodations; not required to reassign if it would bump another employee)