979 F. Supp. 2d 1251
N.D. Ala.2013Background
- Debrah J. Moore, long-time Child Nutrition Program (CNP) cafeteria manager for Jackson County Board of Education, broke her ankle July 2010, underwent surgery, and used assistive devices while recovering.
- Moore sought to return to work October 13, 2010 with a physician’s note stating she could return "without restrictions," though contemporaneous notes showed residual use of crutches and some stiffness; she requested not to perform cooking/cleaning duties.
- The Board (through Superintendent Harding and CNP Supervisor Vaughn) required employees to be able to perform all essential job functions before returning and stated that managers routinely performed cooking and cleaning as needed because cafeterias had only two–three staff.
- The Board temporarily reassigned Moore’s managerial duties during her leave; Moore did not propose any accommodation other than excusing her from cooking/cleaning.
- The court found Moore was disabled under the Rehabilitation Act (post-ADAAA/EEOC guidance) during her recovery, but held she was not a "qualified individual" because she could not perform essential functions and failed to identify a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore was a "disability" under the Rehabilitation Act | Broken ankle substantially limited walking/standing; disability protection applies | Temporary impairment not a disability under pre-ADAAA law; regs arguably inapplicable | Court: Under ADAAA purpose and persuasive EEOC regs, temporary impairments can qualify; Moore was disabled while recovering |
| Whether Moore was a "qualified individual" able to perform essential functions with reasonable accommodation | Moore could perform managerial duties (paperwork, register) and sought accommodation exempting cooking/cleaning | Managerial duties expressly included helping with cooking/cleaning; few staff meant those tasks are essential; excusing them would change essential functions or require hiring another worker | Court: Cooking/cleaning were essential functions; Moore failed to propose an accommodation that would allow her to perform all essential functions; not a qualified individual |
| Whether employer had an unlawful "100% healed" policy | Moore contends the Board’s requirement to perform all duties before return is effectively a 100% healed rule | Board says policy requires ability to perform essential functions, not full recovery | Court: No evidence of a 100% healed policy; even if present, Moore is not a qualified individual, so she cannot prevail on that theory |
| Whether defendants had duty to engage in interactive process or show undue hardship | Moore argues Harding terminated interactive process by refusing partial return | Defendants argue interactive process unnecessary because no reasonable accommodation was identified; no duty to demonstrate undue hardship when plaintiff fails to identify accommodation | Court: Because Moore failed to identify a reasonable accommodation, defendants had no obligation to show undue hardship or continue interactive process; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment inferences favor nonmovant standard)
- Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trustees, 507 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (pre-ADAAA discussion of temporary impairments)
- Wascura v. City of South Miami, 257 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2001) (ADA/Rehabilitation Act burden-shifting framework)
- Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to identify reasonable accommodation)
- Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, 112 F.3d 1522 (11th Cir. 1997) (employer’s judgment and supervisor testimony on essential functions considered)