Roberta Kowitz v. Trinity Health
839 F.3d 742
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kowitz was a respiratory therapist and lead blood-gas lab technician at Trinity Health; she had cervical spinal stenosis and took FMLA leave for neck surgery in 2010.
- After returning, her doctor imposed temporary physical restrictions (e.g., eight-hour shifts, 10-pound lifting limit); Trinity accommodated limited shift length temporarily.
- Trinity required up-to-date Basic Life Support (BLS/CPR) certification; a memo set a November 26, 2010 deadline for recertification.
- Kowitz passed the written BLS test but informed supervisors she could not complete the physical demonstration until cleared by her doctor; her doctor later said she needed four more months of physical therapy.
- Trinity terminated Kowitz on December 3, 2010 for lack of BLS certification. She sued under the ADA and the North Dakota Human Rights Act alleging failure to accommodate and disability discrimination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding BLS was an essential job function and that Kowitz never requested an accommodation or reassignment; the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BLS certification is an essential function of Kowitz’s positions | Kowitz acknowledged limits but argued she could perform duties with accommodation or reassignment | Trinity argued BLS was essential for safety and thus a required function for both positions | Court: BLS was an essential function for both positions (no genuine dispute) |
| Whether Kowitz requested a reasonable accommodation triggering interactive process | Kowitz argued her written notice and voicemail about inability to complete BLS until medical clearance sufficed as a request | Trinity argued she merely notified them of a disability and never clearly requested accommodation or reassignment | Court: Genuine issue of material fact existed; a reasonable jury could find her communications amounted to a request for accommodation |
| Whether Trinity reasonably failed to engage in the interactive process / consider reassignment | Kowitz asserted Trinity should have allowed more time or reassigned her to a non-BLS role | Trinity maintained no obligation absent a clear accommodation request and pointed to vacant positions she never applied for | Court: Summary judgment improper because fact question remains whether Trinity knew of need and failed to engage in interactive process |
| Burden/clarity required to request accommodation under ADA | Kowitz relied on contextual notice (FMLA, return-to-work form, written note, voicemail) | Trinity (and dissent) argued employee must clearly ask for assistance; mere notice is insufficient | Court: Employee need not use magic words; facts could permit a jury to find her notice conveyed desire for accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir.) (elements of ADA discrimination claim and definition of "qualified individual")
- Heaser v. Toro Co., 247 F.3d 826 (8th Cir.) (qualified individual must perform essential functions with/without accommodation)
- Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corp. Servs., Inc., 691 F.3d 925 (8th Cir.) (definition of essential job functions)
- Scruggs v. Pulaski Cty., 817 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir.) (factors for determining essential functions)
- E.E.O.C. v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir.) (employee must make employer aware of need for accommodation; interactive process principle)
- Kratzer v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 398 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir.) (interactive process is informal and flexible)
- Prod. Fabricators, Inc. v. EEOC, 763 F.3d 963 (8th Cir.) (employee must clearly request accommodation; summary judgment where no specific request)
- Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957 (8th Cir.) (notice must make clear desire for assistance)
- Mole v. Buckhorn Rubber Prods., Inc., 165 F.3d 1212 (8th Cir.) (employer not required to divine specific accommodation absent clear request)
- Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir.) (once accommodation requested, employer must reasonably attempt to determine appropriate accommodation)