Feist v. Louisiana, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General
730 F.3d 450
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Feist, a former LDOJ assistant attorney general, claims ADA discrimination for denial of on-site parking and retaliation under the ADA and Title VII for EEOC charges.
- District court granted summary judgment against Feist on discrimination, and also on retaliation, finding no evidence of a nexus or pretext.
- This appeal challenges the district court’s legal standard for evaluating the reasonableness of a disability accommodation and the sufficiency of retaliation evidence.
- Court holds the district court erred by requiring a nexus between the accommodation and essential job functions and remands for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.
- Court clarifies that reasonable accommodations can include parking and other adjustments not strictly tied to essential functions, per the ADA and regulations.
- On retaliation, the court upholds dismissal of Feist’s retaliation claim as not showing pretext; the evidence does not establish that LDOJ would not have terminated Feist but for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ADA require a nexus between the accommodation and essential functions? | Feist argues no such nexus is required; accommodations need not enable essential functions. | Feist must show accommodation ties to essential functions for reasonableness. | District court erred; accommodation need not be tied to essential functions. |
| Is on-site parking a potentially reasonable ADA accommodation? | Reserved parking can be a reasonable modification under the ADA. | Parking denial was justified or not adequately proven as necessary. | On-site parking may be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. |
| Was the district court correct to grant summary judgment on Feist’s retaliation claim? | Temporal proximity and pretext evidence show retaliation. | LDOJ’s stated poor performance is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason. | Summary judgment affirmed on retaliation claim; no evidence of pretext. |
| Can substantial evidence support the defendant’s non-retaliatory rationale for dismissal? | Record shows prior good performance and deviation from standard practice. | Record demonstrates substandard work on cases justifying dismissal. | No proof that the non-retaliatory reason was pretextual; Feist failed to show but-for causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1997) (discrimination standard related to disability and essential functions cited as inapposite)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007) (prima facie retaliation standard and causation framework)
- Seaman v. CSPH, Inc., 179 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 1999) (ADA retaliation causation standard)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation)
- Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 1996) (pretext and causal connection in retaliation cases)
- Evans v. Houston, 246 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2001) (timing proximity in retaliation cases)
- Raggs v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 278 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2002) (timing proximity and other evidence in retaliation)
- Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2001) (evidence of poor work performance supports non-retaliatory reason)