Sally A. Perry v. The City of Avon Park, Florida
662 F. App'x 831
11th Cir.2016Background
- Sally Perry, a longtime City of Avon Park employee, worked primarily in outdoor maintenance after 2009 restructuring; her duties included cleaning, painting, preventive maintenance, and operating equipment.
- Julian Deleon became Public Works Director in 2009 and later City Manager; he reorganized positions and shifted Perry’s role to primarily outdoor work.
- Perry was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011, took treatment leave, returned on medication, and in 2012 sought additional medical leave for mental health reasons.
- Her doctor imposed restrictions: avoid direct sunlight and work no more than four hours per day outdoors when temperatures were between 50–80°F; South Florida temperatures routinely exceeded that range.
- The City attempted to accommodate but concluded Perry could not perform the essential outdoor functions consistently; it administratively terminated her position.
- Perry sued under the ADA, Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Title VII, and the ADEA; the district court granted summary judgment for the City and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perry was a "qualified individual" under the ADA/FCRA | Perry: her restrictions could be accommodated (reassign to indoor tasks or limit outdoor hours) so she was qualified | City: outdoor work was an essential function; proposed accommodations would either eliminate an essential function or were infeasible given climate | Court: Not qualified — essential functions were outdoor and accommodations were unworkable; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether evidence showed gender discrimination (Title VII) | Perry: Deleon made sexist remarks ("woman’s place is in the home") indicating bias | City: remarks were remote in time and not linked to termination decision; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason was medical inability to perform job | Court: Statement not direct evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence of pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether evidence showed age discrimination (ADEA) | Perry: many laid-off Public Works employees were male and most younger; suggests age-based pattern | City: large workforce reduction during reorganization; termination explained by inability to perform essential duties | Court: Pattern evidence alone insufficient; Perry failed to show pretext or but-for causation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Standard for summary judgment and burden-shifting | Perry: disputes of fact exist about qualifications and motive | City: met burden of showing nondiscriminatory rationale; Perry must show pretext under McDonnell Douglas framework | Court: Applied Celotex/McDonnell Douglas; Perry did not produce sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards)
- D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (ADA qualified-individual and essential-function analysis)
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (employer’s judgment on essential functions given substantial weight)
- Liebman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 808 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2015) (long tenure can support inference of qualification)
- Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (requirements for "direct evidence" of discrimination)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (age discrimination requires but-for causation)