Norwood v. United Parcel Service
57 F.4th 779
10th Cir.2023Background
- Norwood was a UPS division manager who developed anxiety and memory problems and requested accommodations (meeting agendas and permission to tape record meetings) after medical leave.
- UPS provided an accommodation packet, held an Accommodation Checklist Meeting on June 19, 2018, and the Region Accommodation Committee met June 28 and declined taping as unreasonable but identified alternatives (agendas, a notetaker for specific meetings) conditioned on Norwood specifying which meetings needed accommodation.
- HR manager Eric Day communicated repeatedly with Norwood in July 2018 seeking clarification about which meetings required agendas/notetaking; Day told her taping was not permitted and proposed notetakers/notes as alternatives.
- Norwood filed an EEOC charge in July, counsel then sought severance/retirement, and Norwood ultimately retired; she later sued under the ADA and state law for failure to accommodate and retaliation, conceding disparate-treatment claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for UPS, excluding portions of Norwood's expert evidence for improper citation; Norwood appealed, arguing bad faith in the interactive process, erroneous exclusion of expert testimony, and improper drawing of inferences at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UPS engaged in the ADA interactive process in good faith | Norwood: Day concealed that the committee had approved a notetaker and failed to formally offer that accommodation, showing bad faith | UPS: Engaged in repeated, substantive communications, proposed notetaker and other alternatives, and sought specifics from Norwood before providing conditioned accommodations | Court: No bad faith. UPS actively engaged; conditioned notetaker on identifying meetings; asking questions is not a legal defect and does not require a formal offer |
| Whether district court abused discretion by excluding expert testimony of Dr. Aliff | Norwood: Court erred in finding her failed to cite the deposition with particularity and thus improperly excluded expert opinions | UPS: Plaintiff failed to comply with local rules and did not cite record with required particularity; some exhibits mislabeled or missing | Court: No abuse of discretion. Citations were not particular; mislabeling prevented district court from locating the material |
| Whether the district court improperly resolved factual inferences against Norwood at summary judgment | Norwood: Court drew unreasonable inferences (about July 3 phone call, July 11 email, and her testimony) favoring UPS | UPS: Record contradicts Norwood’s version; even accepting omissions, UPS proposed notetaker and pursued accommodations before retirement | Court: No error. Norwood’s account was contradicted by record; Scott v. Harris standard applies to discredited factual versions; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Dansie v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 42 F.4th 1184 (10th Cir. 2022) (interactive process requires good-faith back-and-forth to identify limitations and reasonable accommodations)
- Aubrey v. Koppes, 975 F.3d 995 (10th Cir. 2020) (employer must work with employee to try to find a workable accommodation)
- Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (employee must give notice triggering the interactive process; employee not entitled to accommodation of her choice)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when a party’s version of events is blatantly contradicted by the record, a court need not adopt it at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Suiters, 499 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2007) (testimony offering legal conclusions or speculation is inadmissible)