489 F. App'x 358
11th Cir.2012Background
- Dickerson, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court grant of summary judgment on her Rehabilitation Act discrimination claim.
- She has occupational asthma and multiple chemical sensitivity and alleges she can perform the nurse duties with reasonable accommodation.
- She identifies potential reassignment options she says would avoid chemicals and permit performance of essential functions.
- The district court held she failed to show she was a “qualified individual” able to perform essential functions with or without accommodation.
- The court found she could not guarantee avoidance of facility-wide chemicals and there were no vacant positions to reassign to, so no reasonable accommodation was available.
- On appeal, the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Dickerson a “qualified individual” with a disability under the Act? | Dickerson can perform essential functions with reasonable accommodation. | Dickerson cannot perform essential functions with or without accommodation due to chemical exposure. | Yes, she is not qualified; cannot perform essential functions with/without accommodation. |
| Was there a reasonable accommodation enabling performance of essential functions? | VA could accommodate by reassigning to a position avoiding triggers. | No suitable vacancy or accommodation would enable performance. | No reasonable accommodation identified; district court correct on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. Lader, 185 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 1999) (discrimination standard under Rehabilitation Act and ADA analysis)
- Davis v. Florida Power & Light Co., 205 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2000) (two-step qualified individual inquiry; essential functions)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (definition of reasonable accommodation and essential functions)
- Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055 (11th Cir. 2000) (two-step qualification analysis; accommodability)
- Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282 (11th Cir. 1997) (interactive-process/required consideration of reasonable accommodation)
- Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 1993) (essential functions and safety considerations)
- LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 1998) (essential function analysis and accommodation limits)
- Grenier v. Cyanamid Plastics, Inc., 70 F.3d 667 (1st Cir. 1995) (abstention from considering ancillary claims in summary judgment context)
- Mekedci v. Merrell N at’l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1983) (standard of review for attorneys’ conduct not grounds for reversal)
- Jackson v. Veterans Admin., 22 F.3d 277 (11th Cir. 1994) (regular attendance as potential essential function)
- Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2000) (ADA/Rehabilitation Act standard applied interchangeably)