Koessel v. Sublette County Sheriff's Department
717 F.3d 736
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Koessel, a Sublette County deputy sheriff, suffered a December 2007 stroke and went on medical leave.
- Returned to work August 2008 in a reduced capacity with a health restriction against overtime.
- Concerns about Koessel’s cognitive and memory issues arose from fellow officers, leading to administrative leave in April 2009 and referrals to medical professionals.
- Dr. Moress (neurologist) and Dr. Enright (psychologist) concluded Koessel could physically work but faced potential cognitive/psychological limitations and recommended low-stress assignments or limited public contact.
- Koessel returned in May 2009 to a temporary role, but funding for that position was not approved in June 2009, and he was terminated on August 12, 2009.
- Koessel sued the Sheriff’s Office and County officials claiming ADA discrimination, breach of implied contract, and violations of procedural and substantive due process; the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, which this court AFFIRMS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination prima facie requirements | Koessel was disabled or regarded as disabled and qualified with/without accommodation | Court should find he was not qualified due to high-stress impairment | No genuine issue KO/non-qualifications; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Reasonable accommodation and reassignment | Defendant failed to engage in interactive process; reassignment possible | No vacant suitable position identified; interactive process not triggered | No material fact on proper accommodation; district court affirmed |
| Procedural due process adequacy | Pretermination process was deficient; no pretermination hearing | Pretermination notice and hearing sufficed under Loudermill and state law | District court proper; no due process violation found |
| Substantive due process conduct | Termination shocks conscience; pretextual reasons | Actions were rational and non-shockingly arbitrary | No conscience-shocking conduct; no substantive due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Loudermill v. City of Cleveland, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (floor for pretermination due process; not a ceiling for protections)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (regarded-as disability and the focus on employer's subjective belief)
- Hennagir v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2009) (burden on plaintiff to show qualification for a job as essential function)
- Midland Brake, Inc. v. Midland Brake, 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 1999) (reassignment considerations limited to existing vacancies)
- Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 1999) (interactive process requirement for accommodations)
- EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2011) (interactive process and accommodation standards)
- Lucero v. Mathews, 901 P.2d 1115 (Wyo. 1995) (definition of cause for termination under Wyoming statute)
- Curtis v. Okla. City Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 147 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 1998) (analogy for post-termination review sufficiency)
- Karroll v. Benavidez, 101 F.3d 620 (10th Cir. 1996) (state-law procedures informing due process)