Samper v. PROVIDENCE ST. VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER
675 F.3d 1233
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Samper, a NICU nurse with fibromyalgia, sought an ADA accommodation to an unlimited number of unplanned absences.
- Providence’s attendance policy allowed up to five unplanned absences in a rolling 12-month period, with certain leaves not counted.
- Samper had long-standing attendance issues and reductions in scheduling despite accommodations since 2005.
- Providence provided flexible accommodations (calling in on bad days, shifting shifts; non-consecutive days; extended leaves) but attendance remained above policy limits.
- Samper was ultimately terminated for seven unplanned absences in 12 months and related conduct; district court granted Providence summary judgment on the ADA claim
- The court focuses on whether regular attendance is an essential function for a NICU nurse and whether the proposed accommodation was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is regular attendance an essential function for a NICU nurse? | Samper argues attendance is not categorically essential in all jobs. | Providence argues NICU work requires on-site presence and regular attendance. | Yes; regular attendance is essential for NICU nurses. |
| Can Samper prevail with a proposed accommodation of unlimited unplanned absences? | Samper seeks an open-ended absence accommodation. | Providence argues such an accommodation would undermine patient care and is unreasonable. | No; such an accommodation is not reasonable. |
| Did Providence's prior accommodations render the requested accommodation unnecessary or unreasonable? | Samper contends accommodations show readiness to adjust, implying tolerance of more absences. | Past accommodations do not require tolerance of unlimited future absences; policy serves patient safety. | Past accommodations do not justify unlimited future absences; accommodation not required. |
| Was the district court correct in granting summary judgment on the ADA claim? | Samper contends triable issues exist about essential functions and reasonable accommodation. | Providence presented evidentiary support that attendance is essential and accommodation unreasonable. | Yes; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waggoner v. Olin Corp., 169 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1999) (attendance often essential when job requires on-site presence)
- Humphrey v. Memorial Hosp. Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (regular attendance not per se essential for all jobs; context matters)
- Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 253 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2001) (nonessential attendance cases; open-ended accommodations are unlikely)
- Carr v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 162 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 1998) (consideration of at-home work or reassignment as accommodations when feasible)
- Laurin v. Providence Hosp., 150 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 1998) (nursing context; 24-hour unit staffing; scheduling accommodations relate to essential functions)