Timothy Patton v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc, e
874 F.3d 437
5th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Patton, a Talascend contract employee assigned to Jacobs, has an obvious stutter and reported anxiety/noise sensitivity; he requested quieter workspace(s).
- Patton alleges repeated coworker and supervisor mocking of his stutter (name-calling, mockery in hallways/elevator, loud noises behind him) and pervasive noisy workplace; he complained to his Talascend recruiter and Jacobs supervisor.
- Talascend offered reassignment to another client; Patton remained at Jacobs, performed adequately, but experienced severe anxiety, missed work, and after a panic attack had a car accident and did not return to Jacobs.
- Patton filed an EEOC/LCHR charge (with an intake questionnaire) alleging harassment based on disability and later added sex discrimination; EEOC investigated and issued right-to-sue.
- District court granted summary judgment for Jacobs and Talascend on (a) ADA failure-to-accommodate (for lack of employer knowledge and exhaustion/administrative issues) and (b) hostile work environment (for failure to use employer anti-harassment procedures and thus no employer notice/response). Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patton exhausted administratively a failure-to-accommodate ADA claim | Intake questionnaire attached to charge and EEOC investigation encompassed accommodation request | Formal charge lacked explicit accommodation request; questionnaire alone unverified and insufficient | Intake questionnaire treated as part of charge; claim was exhausted because EEOC investigation addressed accommodation issues |
| Whether defendants knew Patton had a disability-related limitation (noise sensitivity) requiring accommodation | Patton told Talascend and Jacobs that stuttering/anxiety are related and requested a quieter area to reduce stuttering/anxiety | Statements were too vague to link noise sensitivity to a medical disability; no clear notice of limitation | No genuine dispute as to Talascend's knowledge (too vague); Jacobs' knowledge close but insufficient—summary judgment affirmed on merits |
| Whether harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute hostile work environment under ADA | Repeated name-calling, mockery by many coworkers and supervisor, and an incident at a large meeting cumulatively altered employment conditions | Incidents were isolated/teasing; lack of corroboration and plaintiff did not use complaint procedures | Evidence could satisfy severity/pervasiveness element, but Patton forfeited challenge to district court’s finding that he unreasonably failed to use anti-harassment policies; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether employer knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action | Plaintiff complained to supervisor and recruiter; HR call left unreturned | Employers lacked actual/constructive notice because internal complaint procedures were not invoked | Patton failed to avail himself of reporting procedures; employer notice element not met; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist v. Louisiana Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir.) (standard for summary judgment review)
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (EEOC charge scope construed liberally; EEOC investigation scope governs exhaustion)
- Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008) (intake questionnaires may constitute a charge when reasonably construed as a request for agency action)
- Taylor v. Principal Financial Group, 93 F.3d 155 (5th Cir.) (employee must identify disability-related limitations and suggested accommodations when not obvious)
- EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., L.P., 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir.) (employee’s burden to explain that requested adjustments are for medical-condition reasons)
- Flowers v. Southern Regional Physician Services Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.) (elements of ADA hostile work environment claim)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (harassment must be severe or pervasive; isolated remarks insufficient)
- EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc., 496 F.3d 393 (5th Cir.) (long-term pattern of ridicule can establish hostile work environment)