Roderick Billups v. Emerald Coast Utilities Authority
714 F. App'x 929
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Billups, a Utility Service Technician II for Emerald Coast since 1995, suffered a right shoulder injury in December 2013 that left him unable to lift/push/pull the amounts required for his physically demanding job.
- He took FMLA leave, underwent surgery in April 2014, and received worker’s compensation; Emerald Coast’s on-the-job-injury policy generally allowed six months’ leave before termination.
- After repeated medical restrictions and uncertain return-to-work timing, Emerald Coast held a predetermination hearing in June 2014 and terminated Billups on June 23, 2014 for inability to perform essential functions with or without accommodation.
- Billups sued alleging (1) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA (he sought additional unpaid leave) and (2) unlawful retaliation under Fla. Stat. § 440.205 for pursuing worker’s compensation benefits.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Emerald Coast; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Billups was not a “qualified individual” because additional leave was indefinite and would not permit performance of essential job functions in the present or immediate future.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer violated ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodation (additional leave) | Billups argued Emerald Coast should have granted limited/unpaid leave so he could recover and return | Emerald Coast argued six months’ leave was provided per policy; additional leave was indefinite and would not enable performance of essential functions soon | Court held plaintiff’s requested leave was essentially open-ended and would not allow him to perform essential functions in the present or immediate future; not a qualified individual under ADA |
| Whether employer unlawfully retaliated under Fla. Stat. § 440.205 for pursuing workers’ compensation | Billups alleged termination was motivated by his workers’ compensation claim | Emerald Coast argued termination resulted from inability to perform essential job duties after extended medical leave and was consistent with policy | Court held no causal link: over six months’ gap undermined temporal proximity; employer’s nondiscriminatory reason was credible; summary judgment for employer affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard; view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Duckett v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 120 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 1997) (indefinite leave need not be granted as ADA accommodation)
- Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (leave may be reasonable only if it enables work in the present or immediate future)
- Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 1995) (reasonable-accommodation analysis focuses on present ability to perform essential functions)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (employee bears burden to identify reasonable accommodation that permits essential functions)
- Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, 112 F.3d 1522 (11th Cir. 1997) (infrequent inability to perform essential functions can render plaintiff unqualified)
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (employer must perform individualized assessment; uniformly-applied disability-neutral policies cannot defeat ADA without such assessment)
- Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity of three to four months insufficient to establish causal link for retaliation)