Etheridge v. Fedchoice Federal Credit Union
789 F. Supp. 2d 27
D.D.C.2011Background
- Etheridge was employed as a Financial Services Representative (teller) for FedChoice through March 28, 2008; duties included processing transactions, balancing cash, stocking supplies, and light lifting of 25 lbs; she regularly walked during the day and commuted ~½ mile each shift.
- Plaintiff developed right-foot plantar fasciitis in late summer 2007, diagnosed November 21, 2007; she took FMLA leave starting November 21, 2007 for medical reasons.
- FedChoice provided written notice of FMLA rights on leave and informed that leave would count against FMLA entitlement; two FMLA certifications were submitted; leaves were extended multiple times.
- Plaintiff requested a transfer to FedChoice’s Lanham, Maryland headquarters in January/February 2008 to accommodate her condition, but the transfer request was denied.
- As FMLA leave neared expiration, FedChoice sought return-to-work information; after multiple extensions, Plaintiff’s sixteen weeks expired March 12, 2008 and FedChoice terminated her employment effective March 28, 2008; Plaintiff learned of termination in late March 2008.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC complaint in September 2008, received a Right to Sue letter July 2009, and filed the instant action October 9, 2009; the court granted summary judgment for FedChoice on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Etheridge’s impairment qualifies as a disability under the ADA | Etheridge’s plantar fasciitis substantially limits walking/standing. | Impairment is temporary, not a disability under pre-2009 ADA; does not substantially limit major life activities. | No genuine dispute; impairment is temporary and does not constitute a disability under the ADA. |
| Whether FedChoice failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA | FedChoice did not accommodate the disability, e.g., by approving a transfer. | No viable accommodation required given absence of a disability; proposed transfer not mandated by ADA. | ADA claim fails because no disability established. |
| Whether FedChoice interfered with Etheridge's FMLA rights | Employer delayed/failed to notify expiration and hindered extension requests; interfered with rights. | Plaintiff exhausted 16 weeks of FMLA leave; employer provided notice; no interference. | No FMLA interference; rights were not unlawfully impaired. |
| Whether Etheridge's termination violated public policy/ DC HR Act | Termination for medical condition violated public policy. | Termination due to exhaustion of FMLA leave and inability to return to work; lawful. | Summary judgment in defendant’s favor on public policy claim. |
| Whether Etheridge’s claims constituted breach of contract | Employment contract implied beneficial terms; termination breached contract. | Claim dismissed; contract claim voluntarily withdrawn. | Contract claim dismissed as abandoned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court 2002) (defined disability with strict interpretation prior to amendments)
- Lityes v. D.C. Water and Sewer Auth., 527 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2007) (discusses substantial limitation standard under ADA (Affirmed: 572 F.3d 936))
- Lytes v. DC Water and Sewer Auth., 572 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (affirmation of ADA disability analysis after Toyota framework)
- Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (FMLA notice and interference framework)
- Adams v. Citizens Advice Bureau, 187 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1999) (test for substantial limitation in major life activities)
- Pollard v. High's of Baltimore, Inc., 281 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2002) (temporary impairments not disabilities under ADA)
- Duncan v. Harvey, 479 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D.D.C. 2007) (impairments lasting less than one year generally not a disability)