McDonnell Douglas

Just Because §1981 Causation is But For Causation, that Does NOT mean ADA causation is But For

March 29, 2020 by William Goren 2 Comments

This week’s blog entry is an update on a previous blog entry and a discussion of the recent Supreme Court decision in Comcast, which involves the causation standard for §1981. Of course, what we are interested in is whether Comcast necessarily means the Supreme Court will decide but for causation is the standard for ADA matters outside of the retaliation and association discrimination contexts. I am already seeing the defense bar using this case in their briefs to say such is the case. Suffice to say, I don’t agree, and we will explore why that is the case below.

With respect to the update on the previous blog entry, the Eighth Circuit recently decided Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad Company. I am not going to spend a lot of time on Harris in this blog entry. However, a couple of things are worth pointing out with respect to Harris. The case was about whether the District Court properly certified a class action. The majority held that the District Court did not properly certify the class action because there were too many individual differences among disabilities. They ignored the issue of how Union Pacific Railroad uses a 1% rule to justify restrictions. The concurring opinion by Judge Kelly agrees that the class action was mistakenly certified with respect to all individuals with disabilities. However, Judge Kelly spent quite a bit of time on the 1% likelihood to get a disability rule saying that a class action would properly have been certified if the class action was restricted to people in individual job classes rather than to persons with disabilities as a whole. This case bears following because of the 1% rule being allowed as something that Union Pacific Railroad might, and it’s clear from the majority opinion the word is “might,” be able to defend.

With respect to Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African-American Owned Media and its significance for ADA causation, we are going to attack it in the following way: 1) The part of Justice Gorsuch opinion exploring §§1981-82; 2) the part of Justice Gorsuch opinion exploring why title VII motivating factor test does not get imported into §1981; 3) my counterpoint to the part of Justice Gorsuch’s opinion with respect to why the §§1981-82 discussion is distinguishable when it comes to the ADA; 4) my counterpoint/agreement to the part of Justice Gorsuch’s opinion with respect to his discussion of title VII; and 5) my thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

Justice Gorsuch’s Reasoning Exploring §1981 and §1982

Looking to §1981 particular statute’s text and history, the court saw no evidence of an exception to the but for causation rule.
Citing to Nassar, which we discussed here, it is textbook tort law that a plaintiff seeking redress for a defendant’s legal wrong typically must prove but for causation.
The ancient and simple but for common law causation test supplies the default or background rule against which Congress is normally presumed to have legislated against when creating its own new causes of action, including federal antidiscrimination laws like §1981 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Justice Gorsuch doesn’t doubt that most rules have their exceptions. However, taken collectively, clues from the statute’s text, its history, and Supreme Court precedent persuade the court that §1981 follows the general rule.
1981 promises that all persons have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence as is enjoyed by white citizens. While the statute’s text does not expressly discuss causation, this language is suggestive and fits naturally with the ordinary rule that a plaintiff must prove but for causation. That is to say, if the defendant would have responded the same way to the plaintiff even if he had been white, an ordinary speaker of English would say that the plaintiff received the same legally protected right as a white person.
It is the Court that created a judicially implied private right of action, doing so for the first time in 1975.
As time has gone by, the Supreme Court has come to appreciate that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress and that providing a cause of action where statute has not created them is a proper function for common law courts but not for federal tribunals.
In the past, terms in the statutes such as “on account of,” and “by reason of,” have often been held to indicate a but for causation requirement.
The common law in 1866 often treated showing but for causation as a prerequisite to a tort suit.
The term “on the basis of race,” is strongly suggestive of a but for causation standard.
Nothing in the previous §1981 decisions of the Supreme Court even gesture towards the possibility that the but for rule of causation sometimes might be overlooked or modified in the early stages of the case.
With respect to §1982, the court has consistently held that “because of,” language is but for causation.

Justice Gorsuch on Why Title VII’s Motivating Factor Test Should Not Be Imported into §1981

A critical examination of title VII’s history reveals more than a few reason to be wary of any invitation to import a motivating factor test into §1981.
Motivating factor was first adopted in 1989 in the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which can be found here.
In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress provided that a title VII plaintiff who shows that discrimination was even a motivating factor in the defendant’s challenged employment decision is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.
A defendant may still invoke a lack of but for causation as an affirmative defense, but only to stave off damages and reinstatement, not liability in general.
Title VII was enacted in 1964.
Congress replaced the motivating factor test of the Supreme Court with its own version two years later.
1981 dates back to 1866 and has never said a word about motivating factors.
Title VII and §1981 are two statutes with two distinct histories, and not a shred of evidence that Congress intended to incorporate the same causation standard.
At the same time Congress added the motivating factor test to title VII, Congress also amended §1981 and did not even whisper about motivating factors.
Like the motivating factor test, McDonnell Douglas is a product of title VII practice and does not remotely suggest that it applies to §1981.

III

Counterpoint to Justice Gorsuch’s Opinion Discussing §§1981-82 in Terms of How It Fits or Not with the ADA.

Justice Gorsuch says that looking to §1981 statute’s text and history, no evidence of an exception exists. This is not the case with the ADA. For example, if you look at the legislative history of the amendments to the ADA, the term qualified was retained in order to preserve the McDonnell Douglas paradigm.
Justice Gorsuch cites to Nassar numerous times in the opinion. Justice Gorsuch also cites to Gross. In Gross, the Supreme Court held that but for applies to Age Discrimination in Employment Act cases. Again, as we have discussed previously, that case is also distinguishable with respect to ADA causation. With respect to Nassar, we said that the case was a huge victory for both plaintiff and defense lawyers. With respect to defense lawyers, they get but for causation when it comes to retaliation. However, Justice Kennedy made it quite clear that status based discrimination, which is disability discrimination outside of retaliation and association, does allow for motivating factor.
Justice Gorsuch says that clues from the statute’s text, its history, and precedent persuades him that §1981 follows the general rule. That doesn’t hold up with respect to the ADA for reasons we will see in a minute.
The ADA specifically authorizes private lawsuits to enforce disability discrimination unlike §1981.
While it is true that the Supreme Court has held that “on account of,” and “by reason of,” indicate but for causation, you can’t make that leap with respect to the ADA. For example, the ADA is based upon §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. That particular statute, 29 U.S.C. §794, says that causation is, “solely by reason of.” However, causation under title II of the ADA is “by reason of,” and Congress is presumed to have known that at the time title II was enacted, especially since the Rehabilitation Act was enacted in 1973. There has to be a reason why Congress did not import the word “solely,” into title II of the ADA. A plain reading of the two statutes leads to the conclusion that “solely by reason of,” and “by reason of, must be different causation standards. In fact, many cases across the country have so concluded.
Similarly, when it comes to association discrimination and retaliation under the ADA, the relevant ADA statutory provisions are quite explicit that causation is “because of.” However, when it comes to disability discrimination outside of association discrimination and retaliation discrimination, the terms used are “on the basis of” (title I and title III), and “by reason of” (title II). Congress clearly could have adopted the same terminology as it did for association and retaliation claims but it did not.
The ADA was signed into law in 1990, one year after McDonnell Douglas.
Title I of the ADA specifically hooked into title VII of the Civil Rights Act for its remedies.
While title II of the ADA hooks into title VI of the Civil Rights Act for its remedies, one is drawn to the fact that the word “solely,” is completely missing from ADA causation and it appears for Rehabilitation Act causation. As already mentioned, the ADA was 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act was 1973.
The ADA is more than just a typical Civil Rights Act statute. Unlike §1981 and §1982, the ADA imposes upon covered entities the duty to make reasonable accommodations/modifications in order to get a qualified person with a disability to the same starting line as a person without a disability. That affirmative duty fundamentally changes any causation calculus with respect to an analogy to §1981-82.
Absolutely true that but for causation is ancient. However, it is also ancient that where there is more than one but for causation, substantial factor or some test like that comes into play.

Counterpoint/Agreement with Justice Gorsuch’s Discussion on Title VII.

Title VII was enacted in 1964.
Justice Kennedy in Nassar specifically states that status based discrimination claims are subject to a mixed motive analysis. Disability discrimination outside of association discrimination and retaliation, is status based discrimination.
As mentioned above, evidence does exist that Congress intended to incorporate motivating factor into status based disability discrimination claims. Again, as mentioned above, legislative history exists that the word “qualified,” was specifically retained in order to preserve McDonnell Douglas as part of ADA discrimination cases.
Congress did amend the ADA in 2009. That amendment did a lot of things, particularly with respect to definitional items and the overturning of Supreme Court cases. In particular for purposes of this blog entry, it got rid of the term “because of,” that appeared in the ADA as enacted in 1990 and replaced it with “on the basis of,” when it came to causation under title I of the ADA. Why would Congress do that if but for and on the basis mean the same thing? Interestingly, the amendments did not change the causation terminology for title II (see discussion above), and for title III.
McDonnell Douglas, as Justice Gorsuch says, is a product of title VII practice, and the ADA is a civil rights statute. In fact, with respect to title I, remedies are specifically linked to title VII.

Thoughts/Takeaways

You can expect that every single ADA case from here on out will be litigating over the applicability of Comcast to ADA matters.
You can also expect that the Supreme Court will have to address this issue if Congress doesn’t do it first after the 2020 elections, depending upon results of course.
The Supreme Court has given conflicting signals on causation. On the one hand, Justice Kennedy, as noted above, made it quite clear that status based discrimination, which disability discrimination is outside of association and retaliation, is motivating factor. On the other hand, in the case we discussed here, Justice Alito seemed to walk that back.
Justice Gorsuch, as we discussed here, has a record of being open minded to the rights of persons with disabilities when he was on the lower courts. Justice Roberts while being a person that favors corporations quite a bit, has also been very open minded to persons with disabilities (such as here for example).
Does motivating factor actually help plaintiffs? I once had a plaintiff lawyer tell me that it doesn’t. He thought that juries don’t understand it. However, that lawyer most certainly seems to be in the minority. If you are on the plaintiff side, which I am not always, I sure hope you read this blog entry.
While it is absolutely true that “but for,” causation is ancient, it is also true that but for cases often have more than one “but for,” cause. Every one of us who has gone to law school knows that where there is more than one but for cause, but for causation turns into substantial factor, and many ADA cases involve more than one cause. Assuming a court goes with “but for,” a plaintiff attorney might also argue substantial factor where more than one cause exists. That is not exactly the same as motivating factor, but it’s close (see this blog entry for example).
You can also expect in light of this decision a lot more litigation on whether the evidence involves direct evidence or indirect evidence. In the case of direct evidence, you come much closer to “but for,” causation than you do with respect to indirect evidence. If causation is “but for,” what does that even mean for McDonnell Douglas and direct evidence? It will create a mess. Will that lead to replacing direct and indirect evidence with convincing mosaic, such as we discussed here?
Currently, the two hottest areas of ADA jurisprudence our Internet accessibility and service animals. You can now expect causation to join that category.

Failure to Accommodate, Direct Evidence, and Adverse Action

December 10, 2019 by William Goren Leave a Comment

Today’s blog entry is going to be my last substantive blog entry of the year. My daughter is on break the last two weeks of December, and just about everybody takes the Christmas season off anyway. The very last blog entry of the calendar year is when I traditionally do my top 10 Understanding the ADA blog entries of the year. I have not been following what is the top 10 from month to month. So, I am really curious to see how that is going to work out.

Today’s blog entry is actually on a case that my fellow bloggers have blogged on before. This particular case involves blogging on a case that my colleague Jon Hyman blogged on previously here. The case is Morrissey v. Laurel Healthcare Company, a published decision from the Sixth Circuit decided on December 3, 2019. Jon did an excellent summary of the facts and his takeaways are excellent as well. I thought I could bring a different spin to his blog entry and so here goes. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: court’s reasoning; and thought/takeaways. I am going to dispense with the facts except as far as they are part of the court’s reasoning because Jon already covered them in brief in his blog entry.

Court’s Reasoning

The McDonnell Douglas test is not necessary where there is direct evidence because defendant has already admitted the wrongdoing. Where direct evidence exists, the factfinder is not required to draw any inferences to conclude that disability was at least a motivating factor.
Since not making reasonable accommodations is listed in the ADA’s definition of disability discrimination, claims premised upon an employer’s failure to offer reasonable accommodation necessarily (emphasis mine), involve direct evidence.
Under the direct evidence framework, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing: 1) he or she is a person with a disability; and 2) that he or she is qualified/otherwise qualified for the position despite his or her disability: A) without accommodation from the employer; B) with an alleged essential job requirement eliminated; or C) with a proposed reasonable accommodation.
With respect to this case, plaintiff alleged a failure to accommodate and a constructive discharge claim under the direct method and a retaliation claim under the indirect method.
The District Court erred in requiring plaintiff to prove she suffered an adverse employment action to pursue a claim for failure to accommodate. Under the direct evidence test, a plaintiff need not prove he or she suffered an adverse employment action separate from the failure of the employer to reasonably accommodate the employee. In other words, failing to make a reasonable accommodation falls within the ADA’s definition of discrimination and that necessarily means an employer’s failure to offer a reasonable accommodation involves an adverse action.
Of course, to establish a claim for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff has to show that he or she has a disability first.
A disability under the ADA is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(A)-(C).
The amendments to the ADA defined major life activities in very broad terms. 42 U.S.C. §12102(2).
The amendments to the ADA also makes clear that the definition of a person with a disability in the definition of substantially limited are to be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage. 29 U.S.C. §12102(4)(A),(B); 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(i).
Under 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(ii), determining substantial limitation mean comparing the person with a disability to most people in the general population. That is not a demanding standard and in general, a plaintiff does not need to submit scientific, medical, or statistical proof to establish such a limitation.
The amendments to the ADA overruled the Toyota Motor standard that an impairment had to prevent or significantly or severely restrict a major life activity to be substantially limiting.
The EEOC removed from the text of its regulations a discussion of the major life activity of working because Congress intended for courts to analyze whether plaintiff can perform certain jobs only when a plaintiff claims she is substantially limited from working but not for other major life activities. Also, no other major life activity received special attention in the EEOC regulations and with the expanded definition of major life activity in the ADA, the major life activity of working would only be used in very targeted situations.
Pre-2008 cases are not good law when it comes to determining whether a plaintiff is a person with a disability.
Numerous facts exists that plaintiff has a disability as defined by the ADA as amended, including: 1) plaintiff asserted she was substantially limited in her ability to walk, stand, bend, and lift repetitively due to scoliosis, bulging disc, Ehlers- Danlos syndrome, Buschkes-Ollendorf syndrome; 2) plaintiff never argued that she had a disability because of an inability to work and such an allegation is not necessary to her claim; 3) plaintiff did not have to tell her employer about her specific diagnosis; 4) plaintiff did tell her employer that she could not work more than 12 hours per shift because she suffered a disability as defined by the ADA as amended.
For an employer’s obligation to activate the duty to accommodate, the employee does not need to use the word “disabled,” rather the employer must know enough information about the employee’s condition to conclude that he or she is a person with a disability. Information that could help figure out whether a person has a disability under the ADA could include such things as a diagnosis, treatment plan, (severe symptoms,) and physician imposed work restrictions.
Medical records establish that the plaintiff suffered from disc disease.
Plaintiff submitted plenty of evidence to show that she was substantially limited in her ability to walk, stand, lift, or bend. In particular, after an 8 to 12 hour shift: 1) plaintiff had difficulty walking, standing, lifting, and bending; 2) plaintiff was in pain constantly and her nursing shifts made the pain worse; 3) plaintiff had severe pain in her buttocks and right leg and numbness and tingling in her feet; 4) plaintiff had so much trouble bending over that it was difficult for her to put on her underwear; 5) plaintiff’s daughter submitted an affidavit stating that plaintiff did not walk at all or walked with a slight hunch and a pained expression after completing a day of work; 6) plaintiff’s daughter also stated that plaintiff could not complete household chores requiring lifting, bending, or stooping after working.
Factual issues exist as to whether defendant regarded plaintiff as having a disability.
Defendant had a policy where it would not accommodate an individual with a disability unless the injury was job-related.
Plaintiff alleged that she requested moving to a unit that required nurses to work only eight hour shifts and that she requested to be moved to a casual status. If granted, she would not have had to work in excess of 12 hours. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant denied both requests.
Plaintiff’s personnel file had medical notes supporting her restrictions. She also repeatedly told her employer that she was under restrictions. For a time, the employer even honored the restrictions. So, plaintiff brought forth enough evidence to claim that she has a record of a disability under the ADA.
In short, plaintiff brought forth enough evidence to show that: 1) her employer had a blanket policy of denying accommodation for all non-work-related disabilities; 2) her employer knew that the plaintiff was under a 12 hour work restriction; 3) (employer knew that plaintiff had requested an accommodation); 4) her employer forced plaintiff to work beyond the restrictions on January 31, 2016, and attempted again to have her do so five days later.
Plaintiff asked her employer for an accommodation due to a disability, and her employer did not accommodate her. So, plaintiff was not required to establish anything more for her claim to be viable.
Defendant makes no argument that plaintiff’s proposed accommodation would impose an undue hardship.
The de minimis employment action defense does not apply to a failure to accommodate situation. Application of such a rule would not only be cruel, but it would contravene previous precedent from the Sixth Circuit as well as the ADA.
The constructive discharge claim moves forward because a disputed question of material fact exists over whether the plaintiff had a disability (see above paragraph). The constructive discharge claim also moves forward because a complete failure to accommodate in the face of repeated requests can suffice as evidence to show constructive discharge.
The employer cannot escape liability by arguing a blanket policy of denying accommodation for all non-work-related disabilities is ostensibly neutral. The court uses an interesting example of a school lacking an elevator for a teacher with mobility impairments to explain what it means. It then concludes that a defendant cannot refuse to provide a plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation and then argue the plaintiff did not qualify for her position because she cannot meet her job’s requirements without an accommodation.
The retaliation claim gets analyzed under the indirect evidence test. To establish retaliation the plaintiff has to show: 1) plaintiff engaged in activity protected under the ADA; 2) the employer knew of that activity; 3) the employer took an adverse action against plaintiff; and 4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action.
Constructive discharge qualifies as an adverse employment action and the record supports a finding that plaintiff was constructively discharged.

Thoughts/Takeaways

It doesn’t matter how a person becomes a person with a disability. I have seen employers think that it does. The very nature of the ADA makes it obvious that how a person becomes a person with the disability is absolutely irrelevant. It is great to see a court saying as much. Interesting that the court looked at it from the view of essential functions. It just as easily could have flat out said it doesn’t matter how a person becomes a person with a disability. Regardless, you get to the same place either way.
Under the court’s reasoning, failure to accommodate claims are analyzed under the direct evidence test, which means that it could be very difficult for defendants to prevail on summary judgment with respect to failure to accommodate claims.
Under the court’s reasoning, failure to accommodate claims do not require an independent adverse action. That is, the failure to accommodate is the adverse action.
This whole direct indirect evidence thing is very confusing, even for me. As we discussed here, the Seventh Circuit is more than ready to blow that whole analysis up completely.
This case is now the second time where I have seen a prima facie for a failure to accommodate claim talk about how a plaintiff can show that they could have performed a job with an essential job requirement eliminated. I’ve said before with respect to this element that I just don’t get it. The ADA does not require the elimination of an essential function of the job.
I’ve also said before that working is not a major life activity that should be used by plaintiffs except under extraordinary situations. The court here says precisely that. In fact, unless extraordinary situation exists, my view for years has been for a plaintiff to allege working as the major life activity is legal malpractice.
Magic words are not required as we have discussed here. All that is required is for the employer to have enough information about the employee’s condition to conclude that the employee has a disability. That is not a high standard.
When it comes to determining substantial limitation, the question is how does that person compare to most people in the general population.
If you have a policy setting up a distinction as to when you will accommodate based upon the origin of the disability, get rid of it.
De minimis employment action defense not available in the Sixth Circuit with respect to a failure to accommodate claim. Check your jurisdiction to see how it handles this question.
The reasoning of the court is such that it open the door to many more constructive discharge claim when a failure to accommodate is involved. The court uses the language “complete failure,” but the decision itself doesn’t seem to be talking about a “complete failure,” being necessary for a constructive discharge claim. Jurisdictions may vary on this.
Court says that retaliation claim can analyze under an indirect evidence test, though I don’t know why that would necessarily need to always be the case.
What Jon said in his blog entry on the case.
The decision is published.
The Sixth Circuit presumes in this case that motivating factor is the causation standard.
Not every court agrees that a failure to accommodate constitutes an adverse action. We discussed one such case here. So, check your jurisdiction on this. This also means a split now exist among the Circuits. Will that split result in Supreme Court review? If it does, I will have to do some serious thinking as to which way the court would go. Offhand, not clear to me at all.
Pre-2008 law discussing how to determine a disability is no longer good law.

Lewis v. Union City Yet Again

August 26, 2019 by William Goren 1 Comment

Today’s blog entry is a case that I have blogged on before twice, here and here. On August 15, 2019, the 11^th Circuit came down with its second decision on this case, here. Since I have blogged on it before twice, there isn’t any need to cover the facts except through the court’s reasoning. The prior appeal to the 11^th Circuit just discussed the civil rights aspect of the case and not the ADA. This appeal to the 11^th Circuit discussed the ADA and revisited the civil rights claims. It also looked at municipal liability under §1983, which the court threw out. I don’t see a need to discuss the municipal liability section under §1983. Finally, there was a concurring and dissenting opinion. The concurrence agrees with dismissing the municipal liability claim and would have thrown out the ADA and civil rights claims as well. As usual, the blog entry it divided into categories and they are: court’s reasoning actual disability and regarded as; court’s reasoning qualified individual; court’s reasoning direct threat; court’s reasoning racial and gender discrimination claims; and takeaways. The reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

Court’s Reasoning Actual Disability and Regarded As

While plaintiff certainly had a physical or mental impairment with respect to her heart condition, she simply didn’t bring forth enough evidence to permit a conclusion that the physical impairment substantially limited a major life activity. For example, she testified that she had periodic shortness of breath, and her doctor testified that it could limit her ability to sleep. However, no evidence existed as to the severity, frequency, and duration of the episodes with respect to shortness of breath. Further, there wasn’t any evidence discussing the extent of plaintiff’s ability to sleep that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude she was substantially limited in a major life activity.
The ADA allows for a cause of action where the an employer regards an employee as having a disability.
Plenty of evidence existed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s employer regarded her as having a disability. In particular: 1) Assistant Chief Brown in his June 17 letter referred to her chronic conditions and instructed her to complete FMLA paperwork thereby suggesting that he believed plaintiff had a medical condition warranting medical leave; 2) on July 1, Assistant Chief Brown prohibited plaintiff from returning to work until everything was cleared up with her doctor. He also said that her Dr.’s letter essentially made it impossible for her to work or be at work and concluded that she could not return until her doctor released her for duty. That email again referred to the possibility of plaintiff taking leave under FMLA; 3) the department’s own stated reason for putting plaintiff on leave, i.e. a fear for her safety in view of her heart condition, demonstrate the department’s belief that plaintiff’s medical condition set her apart from other police officers.
Looking to an EEOC guidance, an employer engages in prohibited conduct regarding a person as having a disability where it takes adverse action because it fears the consequences of an employee’s medical condition.

Court’s Reasoning Qualified Individual

A qualified individual under title I of the ADA is a person who with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that he or she holds or desires.
Essential functions of the job are evaluated on a case-by-case basis after examining a number of factors. Courts do consider the employer’s judgment of whether a particular function is essential and may even cut the employer more slack when the employer is a Police Department. Courts also consider the EEOC seven factors as well.
The employer’s judgment as to what are the essential functions of the job is not by itself conclusive.
The city’s written job description for the position of detective nowhere mentions it is necessary for a detective either to carry or to be exposed to OC spray or a Taser shock. In fact, there is no such mention of any of that in an entire paragraph listing various physical demands of the job.
The work environment section states that a detective has to be willing to carry a firearm on and off the job and be mentally and physically capable of using deadly force if justified. However, it contains no reference to OC spray or Taser.
Plaintiff offered evidence that detectives previously were permitted the choice of what nonlethal weapon or weapons to carry. Further, neither party disputed that Taser International does not require trainee to receive a shock in order to become certified in Taser use.
Plaintiff clearly presented enough evidence to show that a jury would be justified in concluding that receiving a Taser shock or direct exposure to OC spray was not an essential function of her job. As a result, that means plaintiff was a qualified individual.
In a footnote, the court said that ample evidence existed that plaintiff could withstand indirect exposure to OC spray that would allow her to work inside the Police Department building if that option have been made available to her.

III

Court’s Reasoning Direct Threat

Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that she is not a direct threat.
Direct threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodations. See 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(r).
Direct threat, as we have discussed previously here, has to be based on a reasonable medical judgment relying on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence. It also must be based upon an expressly individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job after considering, among other things, the imminence of the risk and severity of the harm. For this, the court specifically cited to Chevron USA Inc. v. Echazabal, which we discussed here and in numerous other blog entries as well.
The definition of direct threat requires an analysis of the individual’s ability to perform safely the essential functions of the job.

Court’s Reasoning Racial and Gender Discrimination Claims

Previously, the 11^th Circuit sitting en banc concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination under McDonnell Douglas because her comparators were not similarly situated in all material respects. Thus, that particular aspect of the ruling is binding on this panel.
Even without similarly situated comparators, plaintiff can still get by summary judgment if he or she presents circumstantial evidence creating a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent. After all, not every employee can produce a similarly situated comparator. Further, a proper comparator may not exist in every workplace. Therefore, a plaintiff always gets by summary judgment if he or she can present a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that allows a jury to infer intentional discrimination.
A convincing mosaic can be demonstrated in a variety of ways, including: 1) suspicious timing, ambiguous statements and other bits and pieces from which an inference of discriminatory intent might be drawn; 2) systematically better treatment of similarly situated employees; and 3) the employer’s justification is pretextual.
Plaintiff presented a mosaic of circumstantial evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as set forth in the paragraphs that follow below.
Union City initiated plaintiff’s indefinite administrative leave on June 17 and informed her on July 1 that she would not be permitted to return to work until she was medically cleared. Yet a week later, and despite plaintiff’s request to return to work and the police chief’s explicit denial of that request, Union City terminated her for being absent without leave.
Union City gave plaintiff no warning that if she exercised the option to use her accrued leave instead of being on non-pay status, she would be terminated upon taking that option.
Union City gave her no notice she had to file FMLA paperwork by any specific date nor did the department’s written FMLA policy provide any such deadline.
At no time was plaintiff told she would be terminated if her doctor failed to contact the department on the very first day the doctor returned from vacation.
There is also plenty of evidence that Union City’s stated reason for firing plaintiff were pretextual as discussed in the following paragraphs.
Plaintiff can show pretext in any of the following ways: 1) casting sufficient doubt on the defendant’s proffered discriminatory reason so as to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude the employer’s reasons were not what actually motivated its conduct; 2) showing that the employer’s articulated reason is false and that the false reason led to the discrimination; or 3) establishing that the employer failed to clearly articulate and follow its formal policies.
One of the reasons offered by Union City was that her medical condition was permanent. However, evidence exists suggesting the department believed either that plaintiff was faking her medical condition or that her condition was not sufficiently serious to prevent her from working as a detective. In fact, the initial letter placing plaintiff on leave stressed that she had been cleared for full duty without restrictions after a heart attack and emphasized that the letter disclosing her chronic condition came as a surprise.
Plaintiff’s doctor testified that the Assistant Chief made clear to plaintiff’s doctor in a telephone conversation that he thought her letter was more a product of plaintiff’s influence than her unbiased medical judgment. In fact, the Assistant Chief at his deposition testified that he doubted plaintiff’s doctor truthfulness more generally.
Two of Union City’s police chief’s letters could reasonably be construed as indicating that plaintiff’s doctor would ultimately clear plaintiff for duty and that the medical condition, in the department’s view would not permanently prevent plaintiff from doing her job as a detective.
Plenty of evidence exists that the argument that plaintiff did not timely submit her paperwork was just a pretext.
Evidence existed permitting the conclusion that two Caucasian officers in a similar situation to plaintiff were treated differently. However, the white officers were treated more favorably than the plaintiff because they were given extended periods of time to attempt to demonstrate their physical ability they needed, but plaintiff was fired without warning.
A reasonable jury could find that Union City did not consistently exercise its authority in placing physically unfit officers on administrative leave and that Union City did not comply with its own policies.
One Caucasian officer was offered a transfer to a position not requiring him to continue taking the fitness test that he failed while plaintiff was fired without notice after 21 days of administrative leave and was offered no such alternative assignment before termination.
Union City had a history of working with others with a heart condition to allow them to receive a milder version of Taser training with respect to officers with heart conditions but that option was never offered to the plaintiff.
A Union City Lieutenant testified that the department treated women differently than men with regards to the cases assigned to them.
Plaintiff by her termination undoubtedly suffered an adverse action i.e. a change in the terms of her employment.

Takeaways

A regarded as cause of action does not require a substantial limitation on a major life activity. Thanks to the amendments to the ADA, it only requires the employer regard the person as having a physical or mental impairment.
The employer’s judgment as to what the essential functions of the job is not the be-all and end-all of things.
Keep your written job descriptions current.
Antidiscrimination policies for dealing with people with disabilities are always a good idea. Also, make sure those policies are implemented without favoritism and in a consistent manner. Keep in mind, when it come to the ADA, consistently doing an individualized analysis is where you need to go.
I’ve seen many folks get hung up on direct threat because they don’t read Chevron v. Echazabal. Remember, direct threat has to be based on a reasonable medical judgment relying on the most current medical knowledge and or the best available objective evidence. It also needs to be based upon an individualized assessment as well. I have also seen lots of entities make a mistake by not doing the individualized assessment.
This isn’t the first time we have seen convincing mosaic. We saw it here. What is interesting in this case, is that the 11^th Circuit says that convincing mosaic is a fallback were no comparators exist. In the Seventh Circuit, as we discussed previously, convincing mosaic is another way to deal with McDonnell-Douglas regardless of whether the proof is indirect or direct.
Insisting on a full return to work is always a bad idea. We discussed that issue here.
Remember, otherwise qualified/qualified is a question of whether the individual can do the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations.
Convincing mosaic is a fairly new idea. It will be interesting to follow what happens from here on out. Expect the United States Supreme Court to deal with it eventually.
The 11^th Circuit nicely lays out what is needed to show it convincing mosaic and what is necessary to show pretext.