Morton v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
1:12-cv-00028
N.D. Miss.Jun 18, 2013Background
- Morton, a utility worker trainee at Cooper Tire, has a right prosthetic leg and was assigned to the Twin-Two Calendar windup, an essential, physically demanding function.
- The windup process requires handling spools weighing up to 60 pounds empty and up to 200 pounds full, with a hoist available, and unassisted mastery over a full shift.
- Morton trained but could not complete a full 12-hour shift unaided; he repeatedly needed trainer assistance.
- Morton's April 18, 2011 meeting claimed his prosthetic leg prevented unaided performance and suggested no accommodation could help him perform the job.
- Morton alleged ADA discrimination and failure to accommodate; Cooper Tire moved for summary judgment, which the court denied due to material facts in dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination prima facie showing | Morton is a qualified individual with a disability | Morton cannot perform essential functions unaided | Fact issue on qualification and discrimination survives |
| Failure to provide reasonable accommodation | Breaks would allow Morton to readjust prosthesis and perform job | Only limited breaks were provided; alternative accommodations waived | Fact issue as to accommodation necessity and effectiveness remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James of Wash., 276 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2002) (conclusory assertions insufficient for summary judgment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) ( credibility issues reserved for trial)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment in context of genuine disputes of material fact)
- Rizzo v. Children’s World Learning Ctrs., Inc., 213 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2000) (burden on employee to prove disability and accommodation availability)
- Mzyk v. North East Indep. Sch. Dist., 397 F. App’x 13 (5th Cir. 2010) (reasonable accommodation failure claim standards in Fifth Circuit)
- Burch v. City of Nacogdoches, 174 F.3d 615 (5th Cir. 1999) (qualification and accommodation analysis for ADA claims)
- Appel v. Inspire Pharms., Inc., 428 F. App’x 279 (5th Cir. 2011) (interactive process and accommodation discussion guidance)
- Cutrera v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., 429 F.3d 108 (5th Cir. 2005) (employee’s duty to request accommodation; ADA remedial scope guidance)
- Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 117 F.3d 800 (5th Cir. 1997) (ADA requires no affirmative action in favor of disabled individuals beyond discrimination prohibition)