Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1958
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00046-CCE-LPA)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
The
Equal
Employment
Opportunity
Commission
(EEOC)
EEOCs
claim
under
Title
of
the
Americans
with
I.
A.
Womble
Carlyle
is
full
service,
business
law
firm
The Winston-Salem,
other
staff,
the
firm
employs
about
15
Support
J.A. 3435.
basically
During
do
whatever
typical
shift,
they
many
need
SSAs
us
are
to
do.
present,
J.A.
which
350.
allows
based
on
rotating
schedule,
or
at
the
satellite
buildings.
Charlesetta Jennings, the complainant, began work at the
firm as an SSA in April 2000.
performed
other
tasks,
such
as
delivering
But she
to
each
with
express-delivery
shipments,
filling
in
for
absence,
intermittent
returned
leave
to
while
work
in
September
undergoing
2008.
chemotherapy
She
took
treatments
It is triggered by heavy
J.A. 76.
Because of
the location of the scale used to weigh the boxes, Jennings was
not able to use any of the alternate methods she had used at
other times to avoid the heavy lifting.
pounds,
shoulder.
and
she
could
feel . . .
the
soreness
in
[her]
J.A. 228.
Manager
conferred
to
determine
what
SSA
functions
J.A. 3943.
scan
without
assistance
and
prepare
heavy
Carlyle
accommodated
Jenningss
10-pound
lifting
the
building;
performed
quality
checks,
book
binding,
print jobs, and Bates stamping; sorted mail; sent faxes; and
assisted
with
light-weight
workspace
clean-up.
Tasks
express-delivery
she
6
had
performed
packages
and
prior
her
to
injury, but which she did not do during this time, included
making
floor
runs,
assisting
with
express-delivery
packages
supervisors
testified
that
after
the
scanning
project was complete, she was often idle at work because of her
limitations.
reduction in work after the scanning project was [n]o more than
normal, and was instead the result of the unpredictable daily
workload.
J.A. 27879.
Manager
transfer
concluded
also
Jennings
that
to
considered
another
Jennings
might
whether
Womble
job
position.
be
qualified
Carlyle
The
could
Although
to
work
she
as
filed
charges
of
discrimination
with
the
EEOC,
The
Court
for
the
Middle
District
of
North
Carolina.
In so deciding,
deposition
testimony,
and
the
firms
proffered
and
diminished.
(8th
Cir.
personal
the
overall
flexibility
of
the
team
would
be
which
experience
is
held
of
that
no
an
employees
consequence
8
in
the
specific
essential
Indeed, the
were
involving
heavy
routinely
lifting
required
and
that
to
even
perform
if
some
certain
tasks
SSAs
had
Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 369 F. Appx 472, 482 (4th Cir. 2010)).
The court also concluded that it would not be reasonable to
require
Womble
Carlyle
to
assign
one
or
more
SSAs
to
help
(citing
Shin,
369
F.
Appx
at
482).
The
EEOC
timely
appealed.
II.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the
same standards as applied by the district court.
Hartsell v.
Duplex Prods., Inc., 123 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 1997).
Summary
any
material
fact
and
the
Catrett,
477
determination,
we
U.S.
317,
must
moving
party
is
entitled
to
review
(1986).
the
In
record
making
taken
this
as
nonmoving
party.
Reeves
v.
Sanderson
Plumbing
Prods.,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
10
III.
On appeal, the EEOC argues that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment for Womble Carlyle because Jennings
could
perform
the
essential
functions
of
the
SSA
job
even
discussion
consider
(1)
of
the
whether
governing
Jennings
legal
could
framework,
perform
the
and
then
essential
functions of the job; and (2) if she could not, whether the EEOC
identified a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled
her to do so.
A.
Under Title I of the ADA, an employer cannot discriminate
against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.
U.S.C. 12112(a).
42
functions
of
the
employment
position
Id. 12111(8).
that
such
[E]ssential
relationship
to
the
job.
Tyndall
v.
Natl
Educ.
Ctrs., Inc., 31 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting Chandler
11
accommodation.
42
U.S.C.
12111(8).
The
term
functions
of
1630.2(o)(1)(ii).
that
While
position.
reallocating
29
or
C.F.R.
redistributing
29
is
C.F.R.
not
pt.
1630
reasonable
app.
under
1630.2(o),
the
ADA
if
an
it
else
because
it
do
the
[would]
heavy
lifting
require[]
for
another
12
him
was
person
unreasonable
to
perform
an
B.
Turning
to
the
merits
of
EEOCs
appeal,
we
hold
that
beyond
dispute
that
(1)
Jennings
could
not
perform
an
essential function of the job; and (2) the EEOC has identified
no reasonable accommodation that would satisfy its burden to
show the contrary. 2
turn.
1.
We
first
conclude
that,
because
the
SSA
position
is
In determining
13
particular
experience.
That
an
employee
may
251 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 2001); see also Anderson v. Coors
Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171, 117576 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding
that
the
district
court
properly
considered
the
essential
to
assigned).
those
Here,
of
the
it
is
narrower
position
undisputed
that
to
the
which
SSA
she
was
position
As
discussed above, the SSA duties are numerous and varied, see
J.A. 3435, and as one SSA testified, We basically do whatever
they need us to do, J.A. 350.
primarily in the copy room, she could have, at any time, been
called upon to move heavy furniture or carry heavy packages.
As
14
at
Liberty
Plaza,
which
involved
lifting
more
than
20
J.A. 76.
to lift heavy express-delivery packages, J.A. 342-43, carry 50pound boxes, J.A. 36364, and help with office moves, J.A. 366,
among other heavy-lifting tasks.
Because so many facets of the SSA job may at any time
require lifting over 20 pounds, the ability to do so bear[s]
more than a marginal relationship to the job, and is thus an
essential function of the position.
And because Jennings was unable to lift that amount, she was
unable to perform an essential function of the job.
The
EEOCs
arguments
to
the
contrary
are
unpersuasive.
reviews
and
with
that
twenty pounds.
she
no
did
official
this
complaints
without
lifting
and
more
no
than
Her
testimony reflects that she did lift more than 20 pounds prior
to her injury, and her alternate work methods did not prevent
her
from
having
to
lift
more
than
20
pounds
and
injuring
herself.
Relatedly,
the
EEOC
argues
that
Jenningss
work-around
To
or
any
of
number
of
tasks.
Thus,
even
though
Jenningss
own
experience
16
demonstrates
that
the
Corr.,
107
F.3d
483,
484-85
(7th
Cir.
1997)
(deeming
we
conclude
function
of
that
the
Jennings
job,
she
could
was
not
not
perform
a
an
qualified
individual unless the EEOC has carried its burden to show that a
reasonable accommodation would have enabled her to do so.
We
IV.
We are not unsympathetic to Jenningss situation.
Indeed,
Womble
Carlyle,
too,
appears
to
have
been
impressed
with
is
disability,
that, because
of
Jenningss
she
is
unable
to
district court is
AFFIRMED.
18