Jacqlyn Smith v. Clark County School District
727 F.3d 950
9th Cir.2013Background
- Jacqlyn Smith was a Clark County School District employee (literary specialist) who injured her back in 2001 and later was reassigned to teach kindergarten in 2008; she claimed she could not perform kindergarten duties (standing, bending, stooping) but could do less physical roles that permitted sitting.
- After aggravating her back in March 2008, Smith obtained FMLA leave and private disability benefits and applied for PERS disability retirement; PERS approved “total and permanent disability” in October 2008.
- Smith repeatedly requested accommodation (remain as literary specialist or be reassigned to another non-teaching position); the School District declined reassignment and offered classroom accommodations (chair, full-time aide); negotiations failed and Smith resigned to take PERS retirement.
- Smith sued under the ADA for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The district court initially denied summary judgment to the District, but later granted the District’s motion for reconsideration and entered summary judgment for the District, concluding Smith’s disability-benefits statements were irreconcilable with an ADA claim.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in granting reconsideration and (2) whether, under Cleveland v. Policy Management, Smith’s explanations for inconsistent benefit statements were sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting reconsideration? | Smith: reconsid. was improper | District: court should apply Cleveland and reconsider | No abuse of discretion; applying controlling Supreme Court precedent justified reconsideration |
| Does Cleveland apply to state/private/FMLA/PERS benefit applications or only SSDI? | Cleveland's framework should apply broadly to disability-benefit applications | Limit Cleveland to SSDI only | Cleveland applies beyond SSDI; Court declined a conclusive negative presumption for PERS/FMLA/private benefits |
| Were Smith’s benefit applications genuinely inconsistent with her ADA claim so as to bar it absent sufficient explanation? | Smith: statements reflected temporary incapacity or did not account for reasonable accommodation or reassignment | District: statements ("unable to work," PERS approval) negate being a "qualified individual" | Smith provided sufficient explanations (temporary nature, accommodations, reassignment possibility) to create triable issues; summary judgment was improper |
| Alternate ground: Was there no denial of reasonable accommodation? | Smith: disputed adequacy of District’s offered accommodations and sought reassignment | District: its offers were reasonable | Ninth Circuit declined to decide on alternate ground; found genuine issues of material fact on accommodation remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (framework for how disability-benefit applications affect ADA claims and requiring plaintiff to explain apparent conflicts)
- Norris v. Sysco Corp., 191 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying Cleveland framework to inconsistent statements and summary-judgment review)
- Solomon v. Vilsack, 628 F.3d 555 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (applying Cleveland to non-SSDI benefit schemes and explaining two-part analysis)
- Dark v. Curry Cnty., 451 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2006) (reassignment can make plaintiff a qualified individual under the ADA)
- Humphrey v. Mem'l Hosps. Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (leave of absence can be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA)