598 F. App'x 672
11th Cir.2015Background
- Abram, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court grant of summary judgment for Fulton County on ADA Title I claims.
- Abram previously held the Administrative Coordinator I/front-desk receptionist role in Fulton County Public Works and was certified disabled for ADA purposes in April 2007.
- Abram resigned in March 2009 amid alleged discriminatory accommodation-denial claims related to her lupus.
- She challenged denials of several accommodation requests from 2006 through 2009, arguing timely exhaustion and continuing violations.
- The district court dismissed most claims as time-barred or unexhausted, and held that Abram’s home-work request was not a reasonable accommodation and front-desk presence was an essential function.
- Abram argues constructive-discharge claims were improperly handled and not properly exhausted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations and tolling mechanics | Abram asserts two-year tolled period and continuing violations | Fulton County contends timely filing and exhaustion controls; no tolling applicable | Statute and exhaustion proper; limited tolling considerations waived |
| Essential function and reasonable accommodation | Front-desk presence was not essential; telework possible | Front-desk presence is essential; no viable accommodation | Jury would find front-desk presence essential; no reasonable accommodation |
| Constructive discharge claim | Resignation due to intolerable conditions and failure to accommodate | Constructive-discharge claim not properly exhausted; insufficient evidence | Constructive-discharge claim not established; no exhaustion and insufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Everett v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 138 F.3d 1407 (11th Cir. 1998) (limits on applicable statute of limitations under ADA claims in non-deferral states)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts; continuing-violation not applicable to discrete acts outside limitations period)
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (discrete acts; hostile-work-environment distinctions)
- Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion and timeliness under Title VII/ADA)
- Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Florida, 232 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2000) (timeliness after EEOC right-to-sue; 90-day window)
- Holly v. Clairson Industries, L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (ADA reasonable accommodation framework; burden-shifting)
- Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2000) (employee-burden to identify reasonable accommodation)
- Bost v. Federal Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2004) (equitable tolling rarity and standard)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen, 522 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2008) (standards for reviewing equitable-tolling determinations)
- D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (case-by-case evaluation of essential functions)