70 F. Supp. 3d 140
D.D.C.2014Background
- EEOC sues Howard University alleging ADA violation for failing to hire Muse due to his disability (end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis).
- Muse applied in 2009 for Protective Services Supervisor and Protective Services Officer positions with three 8-hour shifts (7am-3pm, 3pm-11pm, 11pm-7am).
- Vacancy descriptions stated ability to work nights, weekends, holidays, and rotating shifts as required; Muse disclosed dialysis schedule (Mon/Wed/Fri before noon) during interview.
- Cooper and Hodges, Howard University Hospital hiring officials, did not ask follow-up questions about dialysis or scheduling flexibility; Muse was not hired for reasons including dialysis schedule, lifting restriction, and desire for light duty.
- EEOC suit filed July 2012; Defendants move for summary judgment arguing dialysis schedule made rotating shifts an essential function and therefore non-discriminatory under ADA.
- Court denies summary judgment, finding genuine issues exist about whether Muse could perform essential functions and whether defendant’s reason was pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rotating shifts are an essential function of the DPS positions. | Muse could perform essential functions with scheduling flexibility. | Rotating shifts are essential; dialysis schedule prevents availability. | Questions of fact on essential function preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether Muse could have performed the essential function despite his dialysis. | Evidence suggests Muse could cover shifts and reschedule dialysis. | Evidence insufficient; shifting requirements were unmet by Muse. | There is a genuine dispute about Muse’s ability to perform the function. |
| Whether defendant’s proffered reason was pretext for discrimination. | Failure to ask questions shows discriminatory bias; evidence could show pretext. | Reason relates to scheduling needs, not discriminatory intent. | Material facts support a finding that the reason may be pretextual. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 283 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2002) (relevant to essential functions and disability discrimination)
- Weigert v. Georgetown Univ., 120 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000) (disability claims and essential functions analysis)
- Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc; framework for assessing pretext under ADA)
- Kalekiristos v. CTF Hotel Mgmt. Corp., 958 F. Supp. 641 (D.D.C. 1997) (essential functions and rotating shift considerations)
- Taylor v. Rice, 451 F.3d 898 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (factors for determining essential functions)