626 F. App'x 775
10th Cir.2015Background
- Schlecht was an optical engineer at Lockheed Martin on the Orion project.
- Her wages were garnished in July 2008 and June 2009; she requested notice within two days of garnishment and explanation before paycheck adjustments.
- In 2009 the Orion project was delayed; she was reassigned to tasks unrelated to her expertise and to reduce costs.
- Schlecht was advised she would be part of a company-wide reduction; the Orion funding was cut and LMC laid off about 490 employees in 2009-2010; she was terminated in June 2010.
- She alleged ADA disabilities (ADD, major anxiety, PTSD) and claimed failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, and termination/retaliation; LMC moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for LMC, finding no evidence of actionable ADA discrimination or retaliation, and no hostile environment; Schlecht appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schlecht proved a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA. | Schlecht maintained LMC failed to accommodate her disabilities beyond garnishment. | LMC did not receive any further garnishment orders and no other accommodation requests were presented. | No genuine issue; no evidence of a required accommodation denial. |
| Whether there was evidence of a hostile work environment based on disability. | Schlecht claimed disability-related harassment. | No evidence of severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct tied to disability. | No genuine issue; record lacked evidence of a hostile environment. |
| Whether the termination/retaliation claims were pretextual given a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. | Schlecht asserted pretext for the discharge and retaliation. | LMC showed budget-driven RIF and nonfit of skill set; no pretext shown. | District court did not err in finding no pretext; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in Rule 59(e) ruling and related procedures. | Schlecht sought to introduce new evidence and an expedited hearing. | Court properly denied relief for failure to meet Rule 59(e) standards; no intervening law or new evidence. | No abuse of discretion; Rule 59(e) motion correctly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2011) (prima facie ADA discrimination standard and causation of adverse action)
- Kotwica v. Rose Packing Co., 637 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2011) (failure-to-accommodate requires a reasonable modification)
- Gross v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 53 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1995) (summary judgment evidence must be admissible and specific)