Paul Leighton v. Three Rivers School District
693 F. App'x 662
9th Cir.2017Background
- Paul Leighton, a head custodian for Three Rivers School District, sued alleging violations of the ADA, Title VII, and an Oregon statute after employment actions related to his medical condition and return-to-work status.
- Leighton failed to obtain full medical clearance to return to work in any capacity until fall 2012; he was not cleared for full-time work until December 2012.
- The District had previously created a part-time position for Leighton but did not create another part-time position in fall 2012.
- The district court struck an unauthenticated exhibit Leighton submitted and granted summary judgment for the School District; Leighton appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit found many arguments waived for being raised too late or unsupported, concluded striking the exhibit was within discretion, and affirmed summary judgment for the District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leighton was denied a reasonable accommodation under the ADA | Leighton argued the District should have created a part-time position or otherwise accommodated him in fall 2012 | District argued Leighton lacked medical clearance so accommodation was not possible and it had no obligation to create a new position | Held: No liability — he lacked clearance until late 2012 and creation of a new position is not required |
| Whether the District failed to engage in the ADA interactive process | Leighton argued District failed to engage and so is liable | District argued any failure was not actionable because reasonable accommodation was not possible until clearance | Held: No liability — even if interactive-process failure occurred, no remedy absent an available reasonable accommodation when he was able to work |
| Whether the court erred in striking Leighton’s unauthenticated exhibit | Leighton claimed prejudice from striking the exhibit | District maintained the exhibit was unauthenticated and properly struck sua sponte | Held: No abuse of discretion; Leighton showed no prejudice |
| Burden allocation on undue hardship and reasonable accommodation | Leighton argued district court wrongly placed burden on him to disprove undue hardship | District argued plaintiff must first show accommodation is reasonable on its face; only then burden shifts to employer to show undue hardship | Held: Court applied Barnett framework correctly — Leighton failed the initial showing because creating a new position was not reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2001) (arguments raised first in reply and unsupported are waived)
- Greenwood v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1994) (unsupported issues waived)
- Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards for excluding unauthenticated exhibits)
- Tritchler v. Cty. of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004) (prejudice requirement for evidentiary rulings)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002) (lack of medical clearance equated with inability to work)
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (burden-shifting framework for reasonable accommodation and undue hardship)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (superseding discussion on reassignment and undue hardship)
- Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 1999) (past accommodations do not obligate future concessions)
- Wellington v. Lyon Cty. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (creation of a new position is not a required reasonable accommodation)
- Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (liability for interactive-process failures only when a reasonable accommodation would have been possible)
- Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must show proposed accommodation is reasonable on its face)