Jeffery Gordon v. Acosta Sales and Mkt, Inc.
622 F. App'x 426
5th Cir.2015Background
- Jeffrey Gordon, a part-time retail coverage merchandiser (RCM) for Acosta, suffers from edema and takes a diuretic causing frequent urination for several hours.
- Gordon requested a schedule reduction and later sought transfer to an administrative position to avoid supervision by Rudy Ramirez after a heated on-site confrontation between Gordon and Ramirez.
- Gordon first mentioned his disability to management in February 2013 and submitted a doctor’s note in March stating he "requires a position that puts him in close proximity to the bathroom."
- Acosta responded that Gordon could be accommodated in his current RCM role (free, unlimited bathroom access and permission for frequent breaks); Gordon resigned the same day he received that response.
- Gordon sued under the ADA for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge; the district court granted summary judgment to Acosta, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to provide reasonable accommodation | Gordon argued transfer to an administrative position was a reasonable accommodation and Acosta's offered accommodation was insufficient | Acosta argued it offered reasonable accommodation (bathroom access) and Gordon ended the interactive process by resigning | Court: Affirmed for Acosta — Gordon terminated the interactive process by resigning; summary judgment for employer |
| Hostile work environment | Gordon claimed harassment by Ramirez and lack of support created abusive conditions | Acosta argued incidents were isolated and it promptly investigated and disciplined Ramirez | Court: No hostile environment — incidents not sufficiently severe or pervasive and employer remedied the conduct |
| Retaliation | Gordon contended his threats to file an EEOC charge and complaints about Ramirez were protected activity and Acosta retaliated by denying accommodation | Acosta argued Gordon’s complaints were personal grievances not tied to disability discrimination | Court: No retaliation — complaints did not put employer on notice of discrimination and thus were not protected activity |
| Constructive discharge | Gordon claimed conditions were intolerable, forcing resignation | Acosta argued conditions did not meet the higher standard for constructive discharge and Gordon could have continued the interactive process | Court: No constructive discharge — working conditions not shown "so intolerable" and resignation was voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Ibarra v. United Parcel Serv., 695 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Feist v. Louisiana Dep’t of Justice, 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements of failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc., 178 F.3d 731 (5th Cir. 1999) (employee responsibility in interactive process breakdown)
- Griffin v. United Parcel Serv., 661 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011) (consequence when employee ends interactive process)
- McConathy v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Corp., 131 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 1998) (hostile work environment requires pervasive or severe harassment)
- Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., 164 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999) (employer’s prompt remedial action can defeat hostile-environment claim)
- Sherrod v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112 (5th Cir. 1998) (EEOC charge alleging perceived disability is protected activity)
- Lauderdale v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 512 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2007) (constructive discharge requires greater harassment than hostile-environment claim)
- Brown v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 237 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2001) (factors relevant to constructive discharge)
- Brown v. Bunge Corp., 207 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 2000) (examples of conditions supporting constructive discharge)