636 F. App'x 79
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Robert Garner, a Philadelphia school police officer, took intermittent sick leave starting May 2011 for gastrointestinal and other medical conditions; the School District approved most leave requests but denied two principal periods: Nov 7–Dec 12, 2011 and Mar 13–Jun 5, 2012.
- EHS (Employee Health Services) repeatedly reviewed physician notes and twice cleared Garner to return to work; many of his medical submissions did not specify work limitations or were found insufficient by EHS.
- Garner’s union sought third-party evaluations and submitted additional doctors’ letters; some requests were untimely or did not contradict EHS findings.
- After continued absences, the District scheduled disciplinary hearings, placed Garner on probation, and recommended termination; Garner instead accepted an extended unpaid “restoration to health sabbatical,” later extended to June 30, 2013.
- Garner filed an ADA and PHRA suit (discrimination and retaliation) in May 2013 alleging failure to accommodate (use of sick leave and wage continuation) and retaliation for requesting accommodations; the District Court granted summary judgment for the School District.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, finding Garner failed to show he was a “qualified individual” who could perform essential job functions with the requested accommodation and failed to rebut the District’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for adverse actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District discriminated by denying sick leave/wage continuation as an ADA reasonable accommodation | Garner: sick leave and wage continuation were requested accommodations that would allow him to perform job functions | District: Garner was not a "qualified individual" because he could not perform essential functions even with leave; requested leave was effectively indefinite/ineffective | Held: Affirmed for District — Garner failed to show the accommodation would make him qualified to perform essential functions |
| Whether District failed to engage in good-faith interactive process | Garner: District did not honor contractual/interactive obligations in assessing accommodations | District: Followed medical-leave policies, required medical documentation, allowed union procedures and third-party evaluation rules | Held: Court treated interactive arguments as insufficient to overcome failure to show a qualifying accommodation; summary judgment for District |
| Whether District retaliated by denying leave and recommending termination after protected activity | Garner: Requests for accommodation and FMLA application were protected; adverse actions were temporally related | District: Actions motivated by documented absences and policy violations, not retaliation | Held: Affirmed — Garner did not carry burden at McDonnell Douglas third step to show pretext or causal link |
| Whether the periods of unauthorized leave alone establish ADA/PHRA liability | Garner: Focused on Oct 2011–Jun 2012 as relevant period of denials | District: Even during that period Garner remained absent and failed to demonstrate ability to return; denials applied to insufficient medical support | Held: Denials during that period insufficient to prove reasonable accommodation or retaliatory motive; summary judgment for District |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Mental Health Ass’n of Se. Pa., 168 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 1999) (plaintiff must show effective accommodation exists to be a "qualified individual")
- Borkowski v. Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 63 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1995) (employer need not accommodate a "clearly ineffective" request)
- Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999) (interactive process obligations between employee and employer)
- Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Co., 257 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2001) (prima facie ADA accommodation framework)
- Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (leave can be reasonable if temporary and likely to enable return)
- Criado v. IBM Corp., 145 F.3d 437 (1st Cir. 1998) (temporary leave as possible reasonable accommodation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (evidence needed to show pretext at summary judgment)
- Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 1999) (pretext analysis in employment cases)
- Shaner v. Synthes, 204 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 2000) (McDonnell Douglas applies to ADA retaliation)
- Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 1997) (employer's light burden to articulate legitimate reason)
- Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir. 1997) (retaliation requires retaliatory animus to be determinative)