Maria Picard v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital
423 F. App'x 467
5th Cir.2011Background
- Picard, a former transcriptionist for St. Tammany Parish Hospital, alleged ADA discrimination.
- She has Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and sought accommodations (Dragon dictation software and a quiet room).
- Hospital allowed some accommodations (ExSpeak) but not Dragon; Picard found ExSpeak unsuitable and resigned in 2006.
- Picard’s medical history includes a 2000 letter suggesting periodic breaks for stretching; later doctors described impairment but the hospital did not implement Dragon.
- The district court advised the jury on the ADA but Picard asked for a per se rule based on the interactive process; jury found Picard not disabled.
- This appeal challenges jury instructions and sufficiency of evidence supporting the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a per se ADA violation exists for failing to engage the interactive process | Picard argues failure to engage is per se violation. | St. Tammany contends interactive process is not per se and case-by-case. | No per se rule; not a per se violation. |
| Whether the jury instruction on interactive process was correct | Interactive-process instruction should reflect per se rule. | Instruction properly framed as based on law and case-by-case. | Instruction was not error; substantially correct. |
| Whether Picard was sufficiently shown to be a 'qualified individual with a disability' under the ADA | Picard's impairments and limitations constitute disability. | Evidence does not show a substantial limitation of a major life activity. | Evidence supports the jury's finding that Picard was not disabled. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., L.P., 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2009) (interactive process guidance and disability definition limits)
- Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc., 178 F.3d 731 (5th Cir. 1999) (case discussing interactive process and reasonable accommodations)
- Kanida v. Gulf Coast Med. Pers. LP, 363 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing jury instructions with substantial latitude)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (abandoned issues and retaliation concepts in ADA context)
- Hills v. Henderson, 529 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1976) (earlier formulation on summary or preliminary matters guiding instruction standards)