Janet A. Garrison v. City of Tallahassee
664 F. App'x 823
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Janet Garrison, a Purchasing Agent for the City of Tallahassee since 2003, was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 2006 and had frequent, often unplanned, absences; she averaged ~30.5 hours/week on a 40-hour schedule.
- The City granted multiple accommodations (e.g., flexible schedule, modified hours, parking/office adjustments, headphones, fragrance signs) but denied telecommuting requests, finding full-time physical attendance an essential function.
- In July 2013 Garrison renewed accommodation requests (including telecommuting during flare-ups and making up time after hours); the City offered a three-month citywide job-search reassignment instead.
- Garrison filed an internal discrimination complaint in November 2013; the City formally denied telecommuting in December 2013 and began the three-month search; Garrison retired in February 2014 before the search concluded.
- Garrison sued under the ADA and Florida Civil Rights Act for disability discrimination (failure to provide reasonable accommodation) and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the City, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garrison was a "qualified individual" able to perform essential job functions | Garrison argued her duties could be performed with telecommuting during flare-ups and modified hours | City argued full-time physical presence during business hours was an essential function due to vendor/customer interactions and in‑office duties | Held: Garrison was not qualified; physical in-office attendance is an essential function and she could not meet it |
| Whether the City failed to provide a reasonable accommodation | Garrison contended telecommuting and after-hours makeup work were reasonable accommodations | City maintained those accommodations were not reasonable given job duties and past denials; offered citywide reassignment search instead | Held: Garrison failed to identify a reasonable accommodation that would allow performance of essential functions; summary judgment for City |
| Whether the City retaliated for Garrison’s internal complaint | Garrison alleged denial of telecommuting, failure to promote, harassment, and constructive forcing into retirement were retaliatory | City argued actions were not materially adverse, predated the complaint, or were responses to attendance problems; Garrison retired voluntarily | Held: No prima facie retaliation — no materially adverse action shown and no causal link established |
| Whether alleged supervisory harassment was legally actionable retaliation | Garrison claimed supervisors’ complaints about absences were retaliatory harassment | City argued complaints were not severe or pervasive and related to legitimate performance concerns | Held: Conduct was not sufficiently severe/pervasive or likely to deter a reasonable worker from complaining; not actionable |
Key Cases Cited
- Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2000) (defines "qualified individual" and limits accommodation entitlement)
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., LLC, 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (factors for determining essential job functions)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff’s burden to identify reasonable accommodations; adverse-action standard)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (materially adverse action defined by whether it would dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2006) (summary-judgment review standard in employment discrimination appeals)