Hancock v. Washington Hospital Center
2014 WL 60288
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Hancock worked as a medical assistant at Washington Hospital Center (WHC) and suffered from polyradiculopathy/polyneuropathy that limited lifting and triage duties.
- Parties stipulated triage was an essential function of Hancock’s job; WHC had periodically exempted her from triage as a temporary accommodation.
- Hancock claimed WHC failed to reasonably accommodate her disability (she requested continued light duty with no triage and limited lifting) and wrongfully terminated her in violation of the ADA; WHC asserted Hancock could not perform essential functions and had been accommodated by leave.
- At close of trial the jury found for WHC; Hancock renewed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternatively moved for a new trial under Rule 59(a).
- The district court denied both motions, concluding a reasonable jury could find Hancock was not a ‘‘qualified individual’’ because she could not perform the essential function of triage and that eliminating an essential function (no-triage) was an unreasonable accommodation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hancock was a "qualified individual" under the ADA | Hancock: WHC had previously waived triage (accommodated no-triage); thus she could perform essential functions with that accommodation | WHC: Triage is an essential function; Hancock could not perform it even with accommodation, and employer need not permanently reallocate essential functions | Court: Denied JMOL — reasonable jury could find Hancock was not qualified; temporary waiver does not convert an essential function into a nonessential one |
| Whether no-triage (or prolonged leave) was a reasonable accommodation | Hancock: No-triage and limited lifting were reasonable; WHC had granted them before and must continue | WHC: An accommodation that eliminates an essential function is unreasonable; leave was a reasonable accommodation | Court: Held elimination of an essential function is unreasonable; leave can be reasonable; denial of JMOL appropriate |
| Whether WHC had a per se "90-day only" accommodation policy violating the ADA and whether surprise at trial warrants a new trial | Hancock: Dr. Myerson testified WHC generally uses a 90-day accommodation period — this is a per se ADA violation and prejudicial surprise | WHC: Testimony was qualified, management decides case-by-case; no formal 90-day policy in written policy; Hancock knew about the notes and suffered no unfair surprise | Court: Denied new trial — testimony did not establish a categorical 90-day policy and Hancock was not prejudiced |
| Evidentiary & instruction rulings (treating physician testimony; business-judgment instruction) | Hancock: Portions of treating physician (Dr. Noel) testimony and exhibits should be excluded absent an expert report; business-judgment instruction improperly insulated WHC | WHC: Treating physician may testify from contemporaneous treatment without expert report; instruction allowed jurors to find pretext and was appropriate | Court: Denied new trial — treating physician testimony admissible under Rule 26 for treating doctors; business-judgment instruction appropriate and not unduly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.) (employee who cannot perform essential function is not a qualified individual under the ADA)
- Amadio v. Ford Motor Co., 238 F.3d 919 (7th Cir.) (employer need not repeatedly grant successive extended leaves when essential functions remain unmet)
- Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278 (4th Cir.) (same principle regarding inability to perform essential functions)
- Phelps v. Optima Health, Inc., 251 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (prior special arrangements do not render an essential function non-essential)
- Walton v. Mental Health Ass'n of Southeastern Pennsylvania, 168 F.3d 661 (3d Cir.) (discontinuing an accommodation that eliminated an essential function does not violate the ADA)
- Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, Ga., 112 F.3d 1522 (11th Cir.) (declining to require continued elimination of an essential job function)
- Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919 (7th Cir.) (restructuring job duties does not necessarily make eliminated tasks non-essential)
- Billett v. CJGNA Corp., 940 F.2d 812 (3d Cir.) (employers entitled to make business judgments about employee status)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir.) (factfinder may infer discrimination where employer’s stated reason is pretextual)
- Barnett v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 535 U.S. 391 (Supreme Court) (reasonable-accommodation inquiry requires showing an accommodation is reasonable on its face)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court) (principles on proof and employer explanations in discrimination cases)