34 F.4th 655
8th Cir.2022Background
- Ehlers worked in a customer-service administrative position at the University of Minnesota’s Boynton Health Service and was diagnosed with TMJ and other musculoskeletal and mental-health conditions that limited speaking, typing, lifting, and facial/eye movements.
- She took FMLA leave in 2016 and sought multiple accommodations on return: reduced schedule, frequent nonspeaking breaks, ergonomic adjustments, limits on lifting and device use, a quiet workspace, and reassignment to a less-speaking job.
- The University approved leave and some schedule/break accommodations, investigated assistive technologies (one incompatible; one rejected per medical advice), and repeatedly offered to help Ehlers search for other University positions through its job center.
- Ehlers identified multiple job numbers as potentially suitable; the University sent questionnaires to hiring supervisors, but some positions were filled and at least one returned position was inconsistent with her restrictions. Ehlers declined to participate in some transfer steps and later took additional medical leave.
- The University terminated Ehlers after denying an extension of medical leave, Ehlers filed EEOC charges, sued under the ADA for discrimination, failure to accommodate (reassignment), and retaliation, and summary judgment was granted for the University; Ehlers appealed only the reasonable-accommodation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reassignment was a reasonable accommodation (i.e., were there vacant positions Ehlers was qualified for) | Ehlers identified eight job numbers/types and said she could not locate details without employer help, so burden should shift to University to show inability to accommodate | University argued Ehlers failed to make a facial showing of qualification because she produced no job postings/descriptions and had extensive restrictions limiting ability to perform clerical tasks | Court: Ehlers did not make the required facial showing; job numbers and testimony were insufficient given her extensive restrictions, so reassignment was not established as possible |
| Whether the University failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith | Ehlers claimed the University did not timely or adequately determine whether she qualified for jobs she identified | University showed repeated offers to assist, outreach by job-center staff, development and forwarding of questionnaires to hiring units, and consideration of assistive tech | Court: No genuine dispute of material fact; University acted in good faith and took reasonable steps to explore reassignment |
| Whether any alleged lack of good faith caused the failure to obtain an accommodation | Ehlers would have been accommodated but for University’s conduct | University: even if slight procedural lapses occurred, Ehlers failed to show she was qualified for any position, so there was no causal loss of accommodation | Court: Because Ehlers failed to show she was qualified for alternative positions, she cannot establish that any lack of good faith prevented a reasonable accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004) (modified burden-shifting for reasonable-accommodation claims)
- Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (qualified-individual standard and facial showing for reassignment)
- Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan. City, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2000) (employer must show inability to accommodate once plaintiff makes facial showing)
- Minnihan v. Mediacom Commc’ns Corp., 779 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2015) (reassignment as accommodation of last resort; only to vacant positions for which employee is qualified)
- Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1999) (failure to engage in interactive process can defeat summary judgment if employer acted in bad faith)
- Canny v. Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up Bottling Grp., Inc., 439 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 2006) (bad-faith interactive-process facts can create a jury question)
- Battle v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 438 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2006) (employer’s liability depends on whether a requested function is essential or marginal)
- Faulkner v. Douglas Cnty. Neb., 906 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2018) (no liability for failure-to-engage claim when plaintiff is not a qualified individual)