Robert v. Board of County Commissioners
691 F.3d 1211
10th Cir.2012Background
- Robert supervised adult offenders since 1995; job required extensive fieldwork and in-person visits; essential duties included site visits, drug screenings, court coordination, and testimony.
- She developed sacroiliac joint dysfunction in 2004, underwent surgery, and worked from home during recovery; she later returned to office but could not perform site visits or in-person duties.
- A workers’ compensation claim covered medical care; Sloan and Naylor managed illness-related documents, including leave forms, FMLA notice, and a procedures-with-surgery document allowing light-duty work from home.
- FMLA leave expired July 5, 2006; prognosis suggested limited mobility for weeks; at termination on July 31, 2006, Robert could not perform essential field duties.
- Sloan terminated Robert citing inability to resume full duties; Robert sued Brown County for ADA discrimination, FMLA retaliation, contract breach, and due process; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The court affirmed, holding Robert was not a qualified individual under the ADA and that the FMLA retaliation, contract, and due process claims failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination—was Robert a qualified individual? | Robert was capable with accommodation of temporary leave. | Essential duties required in-person site visits; no reasonable accommodation could restore full function. | No; not qualified for ADA due to inability to perform essential functions without an indefinite leave. |
| FMLA retaliation—did termination follow protected leave? | Termination occurred soon after FMLA leave, signaling retaliation. | County had legitimate reason: inability to return with doctor release; no pretext shown. | No; county’s reason was legitimate and not pretextual. |
| Contract and due process—was there a breach of implied/express contract or a property interest? | Documents created an implied/express contract limiting at-will status. | Public employment is at-will unless contract clearly limits termination. | No; no enforceable contract or property interest; claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. Am. Online, Inc., 337 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (defers to employer’s view of essential functions though not conclusive)
- Cisneros v. Wilson, 226 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2000) (leave as reasonable accommodation; limits on duration and certainty of resumption)
- Rascon v. US West Commc’ns, Inc., 143 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 1998) (temporary leave can be reasonable accommodation; six months considered in context)
- Taylor v. Pepsi-Cola, 196 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 1999) (ADA framework for qualified individuals)
- Tate v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 268 F.3d 989 (10th Cir. 2001) (essential functions; employer’s determination persuasive)