Jennings v. Towers Watson
11 F.4th 335
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Jennings, a seasonal benefits advisor, injured her leg in WTW’s parking lot on May 24, 2016; a doctor imposed walking/stair-use restrictions lasting until June 1, 2016.
- Jennings did not complete second-floor mandatory training that day, requested a first-floor trainer as an accommodation, was told to restart training on June 6, and returned then.
- Jennings filed an EEOC charge (June 20, 2016) alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation and unequal payment for training days; after attendance warnings in July she was terminated on July 12, 2016.
- She filed a second EEOC charge alleging retaliation, then sued pro se in federal court asserting ADA failure-to-accommodate and disability-discrimination claims, Title VII race discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims, civil conspiracy, and wrongful termination.
- The district court granted WTW summary judgment and denied Jennings’s motion; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Jennings exhausted ADA claims but not race/hostile-work-environment claims, and that WTW prevailed on the ADA claims on the merits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion of ADA failure-to-accommodate/disability claims | Jennings: First EEOC charge alleged request for accommodation after May 24 injury and denial; that exhausts ADA claims | WTW: First Charge was time‑limited and did not encompass later events; Second Charge lacks race/disability allegations | Held: Jennings exhausted ADA failure-to-accommodate and disability claims (First Charge could reasonably lead to investigation of those facts) |
| Administrative exhaustion of race discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims | Jennings: Complaint alleges racial seating segregation and harassment—should be covered | WTW: EEOC charges did not raise these specific racial/hostility allegations | Held: Jennings failed to exhaust race and hostile-work-environment claims (not reasonably within EEOC charge/investigation) |
| Merits — failure to accommodate under ADA | Jennings: WTW refused requested first-floor training accommodation and thus failed to reasonably accommodate her limitations | WTW: Offered reasonable accommodation (restart training June 6 / time off), which was equivalent to leave and reasonable under ADA | Held: WTW’s offer (time off/restart) was a reasonable accommodation; Jennings’s preferred accommodation not required; summary judgment for WTW affirmed |
| Merits — disability-discrimination (termination) under ADA | Jennings: Termination on July 12 was discriminatory and connected to her injury/accommodation request | WTW: Medical restrictions ended June 1; no evidence Jennings had a disability at time of termination | Held: Jennings failed to show she had a disability at the time of termination; cannot make prima facie ADA discrimination claim — summary judgment for WTW affirmed |
| Rule 59(e) motion and taxation of costs | Jennings: District court erred and should alter judgment | WTW: No manifest error, new evidence, or intervening change in law; costs proper | Held: Denial of Rule 59(e) motion and taxation of costs affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (scope of EEOC charge construed to include investigation that could reasonably grow out of the charge)
- Moss v. Harris Cnty. Constable Precinct One, 851 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2017) (time off can be a reasonable ADA accommodation)
- Delaval v. PTech Drilling Tubulars, L.L.C., 824 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2016) (time off may constitute reasonable accommodation)
- E.E.O.C. v. Agro Distrib., LLC, 555 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 2009) (ADA does not guarantee employee’s preferred accommodation)
- Caldwell v. KHOU-TV, 850 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2017) (elements of a prima facie ADA discrimination claim)
- Thibodeaux v. Sanofi U.S. Servs., Inc., 995 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2021) (appellate court may affirm summary judgment on any record-supported basis)
- Renwick v. PNK Charles, L.L.C., 901 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (standards for reviewing Rule 59(e) motions)
- Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1994) (review of taxing costs for abuse of discretion)