49 F. Supp. 3d 434
M.D.N.C.2014Background
- Stephenson has worked for Pfizer (and predecessors) since 1984 as a pharmaceutical sales representative.
- In 2011 her vision deteriorated in the right eye, rendering her unable to drive, though she previously could work with accommodation.
- Her job requires meeting 8–10 physicians daily across a large territory, with up to 90% of time spent traveling, for which Pfizer provided a company car.
- Stephenson requested accommodations: magnifying glasses and computer software (granted) and a third-party driver (rejected).
- Pfizer suggested internal, telecommuting, or other positions; Stephenson declined some options and eventually went on long-term disability; she filed ADA discrimination claims based on failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, and failure to reassign.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driving is an essential function of Stephenson’s job | Stephenson argues travel is essential, not driving specifically. | Pfizer argues traveling by motor vehicle is essential to the role. | Driving is an essential function of the sales representative job. |
| Whether Pfizer must provide a driver/transportation as a reasonable accommodation | Disability requires Pfizer to furnish transportation to perform the job. | ADA does not require permanent extra personnel or exempt driving as an essential function. | Providing a driver is not a reasonable accommodation; reassignment is the only feasible accommodation. |
| Whether reassignment to a comparable position is a required accommodation | Pfizer must reassign to a vacant, comparable position if available. | No obligation to create or locate a new suitable position; must be vacant or becoming available and equivalent. | Stephenson failed to show a vacant, comparable position; reassignment not established as reasonable. |
| Whether Pfizer engaged in the interactive process and other ADA duties | Pfizer did not adequately engage in accommodation discussions. | Pfizer engaged through offers of alternatives and opened postings. | Court grants summary judgment for Pfizer on the failure-to-accommodate/interactive-process theory because no reasonable accommodation was shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 F.3d 391 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002) (established framework for reasonable accommodations and 'reasonable on its face' standard)
- Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs., Inc. of Cal., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1994) (defines essential functions as more than marginal; uses 29 C.F.R. guidance)
- Ro-han v. Networks Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2004) (examines whether absence of explicit drive requirement defeats essential function finding)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (contrasts essential function analysis for drivers in public safety roles)
- Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2001) (driving-related limitations in promotion context; relevance to essential functions)