69 F.4th 744
11th Cir.2023Background
- Teddy Beasley, a deaf ASL user who lipreads ~30%, worked as a part‑time inbound materials handler at O’Reilly (Apr 2016–Feb 2018).
- The replenishment team had mandatory nightly pre‑shift meetings (5–20 min) that disseminated safety, task, and team information; Beasley could not understand them without accommodation.
- Beasley requested text summaries of the meetings and ASL interpreters for meetings, training, a disciplinary meeting about July 2017 absences, and a company picnic; text summaries were irregular/incomplete and requested interpreters often were not provided.
- Attendance‑related warnings (including a documented verbal, written, and a Final Warning) affected Beasley’s attendance scores on performance reviews, which were tied to merit pay increases; Beasley resigned after receiving a Final Warning.
- The district court granted summary judgment for O’Reilly, finding Beasley failed to show (1) that requested accommodations related to essential job functions and (2) that denial caused an adverse employment action. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded as to two accommodations (nightly meetings and the disciplinary meeting), finding genuine disputes of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of requested accommodations (interpreter/text summaries) constituted actionable discrimination under the ADA (i.e., caused an adverse employment decision) | Denial prevented meaningful participation in mandatory safety meetings and in disciplinary discussions, which harmed evaluations and pay | No concrete harm shown; no evidence that missed meeting content caused safety violations or affected job performance/pay | Reversed as to nightly meetings and disciplinary meeting — genuine disputes exist that denial may have adversely affected terms/conditions (evaluations/pay) |
| Whether requested accommodations related to performance of essential job functions | Meeting attendance and ability to participate in discipline are essential to workplace safety, communication, and evaluation, thus tied to essential functions | These meetings/discipline are not essential job functions of an inbound materials handler | Court declined to resolve broader rule but held (for these facts) attendance/discipline participation can be essential; genuine issue of material fact exists |
| Whether employer’s alternative communications (lipreading, limited verbal, written notes/texting) were sufficient such that interpreter not required | Alternatives were inadequate; supervisor’s summaries were incomplete and intermittent; interpreter was agreed at hire as available | Plaintiff had other means (phone/text/written) and was not entitled to his preferred accommodation | Court found a fact issue whether alternatives would have sufficed—plaintiff need not be limited to preferred accommodation but evidence raises triable issue |
| Whether failure to provide interpreters for forklift training and company picnic required accommodation | Plaintiff sought interpreters for training and picnic | Employer contends no adverse employment consequences: forklift training completed; wife interpreted at picnic; no evidence of harm | Court affirmed summary judgment for employer on these two instances — no evidence of adverse employment action |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallums v. Infinity Ins. Co., 945 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2019) (de novo review on summary judgment)
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (failure‑to‑accommodate actionable only if it leads to adverse employment decision)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (discusses accommodation necessity to perform essential functions)
- D’Onofrio v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 964 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2020) (employer need not provide plaintiff’s preferred accommodation if reasonable alternatives exist)
- LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 1998) (qualified individual analysis where employee posed direct threat)
- Davis v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 205 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2000) (factors for determining essential job functions)
- Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480 (11th Cir. 1996) (summary‑judgment stage facts are the controlling facts for that stage)