Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Christina Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of The Courts, 4th Cir. (2015)
Christina Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of The Courts, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 13-2212
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00169-BO)
Argued:
December 9, 2014
Decided:
that
this
her
mental
inherently
accommodation--to
interpersonal
be
illness
social
assigned
interaction.
task,
to
Her
hindered
her
Jacobs
role
employer
ability
to
requested
an
with
less
waited
direct
three
weeks
brought
with
suit
against
Disabilities
Act
her
(ADA).
employer
The
under
district
the
court
Because
I.
Christina
childhood. 1
Jacobs
has
suffered
from
mental
illness
since
performance
several
anxiety.
days
At
after
twelve,
threatening
she
harm
was
to
hospitalized
herself
and
for
others.
of
18,
she
received
an
additional
diagnosis
At the
of
social
by
Statistical
others.
Am.
Manual
Mental
of
[hereinafter DSM-IV]. 2
disorder
either
situations,
or
distress.
Id.
Psychiatric
Assn,
Disorders
456
Diagnostic
(4th
ed.
and
2000)
avoid[s]
the
feared
endure[s
them]
with
social
or
intense
performance
anxiety
or
in
interferes
occupational
the
feared
significantly
. . .
social
with
the
functioning,
or
performance
persons
or
social
situation(s)
normal
routine,
activities
or
relationships
. . . .
Id.
The
American
Psychiatric
vicious
cycle
of
anticipatory
anxiety
leading
to
fearful
performance
. . .
which
leads
to
embarrassment
Id. at 451.
and
A job
emergence
of
[social
anxiety
disorder]
in
someone
who
Id. at 453.
of
the
(AOC).
included
North
As
an
microfilming
Carolina
office
and
Administrative
assistant,
filing.
Less
Office
Jacobss
than
job
month
of
the
duties
after
provided
customer
service
the
divisions
front
However,
when she was asked a question to which she did not immediately
know the answer--a common occurrence when working behind the
counter.
anxiety disorder.
On or about May 5, 2009, Jacobs went to a supervisor, Debra
Excell, and told Excell that she had social anxiety disorder and
was
not
feeling
healthy
while
working
at
the
front
counter.
Excell encouraged
Jacobs to seek treatment from the doctor who had helped her in
college.
J.A. 823.
Tuckers assistant
the
course
of
her
employment,
Jacobs
was
never
of
supervisors.
the
public,
and
had
outbursts
with
coworkers
and
J.A.
Kennedy told Jacobs that only Tucker had the power to act on
7
Jacobss request and, because Tucker was currently on a threeweek vacation, Jacobs would have to wait until Tucker returned.
Soon after her meeting with Kennedy, Jacobs forwarded her e-mail
request to Tucker.
While she was waiting for Tucker to return and address her
accommodation request, Jacobs sought to use some accrued leave.
Kennedy questioned Jacobs about why she wanted leave and denied
her
request.
Jacobss
previous
leave
requests
were
not
Radewicz,
informing
her
that
Jacobs
had
been
spotted
Excell, Kennedy,
they
had
just
concluded
meeting
regarding
Jacobs.
Tucker
later testified that she had written the notes on the e-mail
printout.
for
an
accommodation
and
recorded
the
meeting
on
small
to
what
Jacobs
J.A. 827.
was
referring.
Instead,
she
told
Jacobs that she was being fired because she was not getting it
and
Tucker
did
not
have
any
place
[that
she
could]
use
[Jacobss] services.
Id.
her
termination,
Jacobs
timely
Id.
filed
Charge
of
knew of Jacobss disability and that she had read the e-mail
before deciding to terminate Jacobs.
of action,
28 U.S.C. 1331.
In a brief opinion, the district court granted the AOCs
motion for summary judgment.
Id.
district
3,
court
2013.
entered
Jacobs
judgment
timely
against
Jacobs
appealed.
We
on
have
II.
A.
Ordinarily
we
would
begin
our
discussion
with
brief
When
the
opinion
below
reflects
clear
A dispute is genuine
party.
A fact is material if it
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.
Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the district
court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the
nonmoving
Adickes
v.
party.
S.H.
Kress
Tolan,
&
Co.,
134
S.
398
Ct.
U.S.
at
1866
(quoting
144,
157
(1970)).
cannot
determinations.
weigh
the
Mercantile
evidence
Peninsula
or
Bank
make
v.
The court
credibility
French
(In
re
French), 499 F.3d 345, 352 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Committees
Note (1963) (Where an issue as to a material fact cannot be
resolved without observation of the demeanor of witnesses in
8
lower
court
contradicted
had
some
of
fail[ed]
to
its
factual
key
credit
evidence
conclusions
that
and
favor
of
(brackets
moving
omitted)
Specifically,
court)
the
the
repeatedly
plaintiff
and
party.
(quoting
court
of
failed
members
of
Tolan,
Anderson,
appeals
134
477
S.
U.S.
(affirming
to
credit
the
his
immediate
Ct.
at
the
testimony
family,
at
1866
249).
district
of
which
the
often
Id. at 186667.
affirmance
judgment.
of
the
district
courts
grant
of
summary
Id. at 1868.
B.
In this case, as in Tolan, the district court erred by
failing to consider all of the evidence in the record.
The
district courts opinion also states the facts in the light most
favorable to the AOC--not Jacobs, the nonmovant.
13
Strikingly,
not
disabled
and
that
Tucker
did
not
learn
of
Jacobss
contrary
to
Jacobss
competent
evidence.
The
1.
We begin by noting several examples of the district courts
misapplication
of
the
summary
judgment
standard
in
its
J.A. 1034.
However, the
outburst did not directly witness it and could not recall how
they had learned about it.
Second,
the
district
court
accepted
the
AOCs
was
nervous
(emphasis added).
about
working
at
the
front
counter.
Id.
social
anxiety
disorder--not
mere
social
issues.
Tuckers
in
which
she
wrote
the
words
anxiety
disorder,
Id.
Excell, and Tucker, who all agreed that Jacobs told Excell she
had anxiety issues that were impacting her work and for which
she had received medical treatment in the past.
Fourth and finally, the district court adopted the AOCs
erroneous contention that its expert witness failed to examine
Jacobs because Jacobs did not consent to be examined.
1035
([T]his
was
done
in
lieu
of
examining
the
See J.A.
plaintiff
15
Tolan, 134
2.
The district court also erred by concluding that Jacobs was
not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
specialists
forensic
mental
on
psychologist
disorders,
this
issue.
Dr. Claudia
Social
Phobia
After
Coleman
and
examining
concluded
Anxiety
Jacobs,
that
Disorder,
her
. . .
J.A. 807.
of
her
medical
records,
social
media
use,
employment
that it was possible that Jacobs met the diagnostic criteria for
social anxiety disorder but that her medical records alone are
insufficient to establish such a diagnosis.
J.A. 222.
He also
currently
succeeding
in
new
customer
service
job,
and
Id.
16
plaintiffs
disabled.
behavior
J.A. 1038.
[at]
work
that
Jacobs
was
not
Additionally,
Dr. Corvins report simply does not support the district courts
finding of no disability--rather, Dr. Corvin concluded only that
Jacobss medical records were equivocal on this question.
As in Tolan, the district court neglected to adhere to the
fundamental
principle
that
at
the
summary
judgment
stage,
We therefore
reverse
there
the
district
courts
determination
that
is
no
is
no
3.
The
district
court
also
determined
that
there
evidence that Ms. Tucker knew that the plaintiff had requested
an accommodation at the time she made the decision to terminate
her.
the record.
Rather, the record taken in the light most favorable to
Jacobs demonstrates just the opposite.
It is undisputed that
September 9, 2009.
the
office
Jacobss
on
September
immediate
29,
Tucker
supervisors--Kennedy,
held
Upon returning
a
Excell,
meeting
and
with
Griffin.
reasonable jury could infer from these facts that before Jacobs
walked
in,
any
or
all
of
Jacobss
supervisors
would
have
Tucker
admits to having annotated the e-mail but testified that she did
so only after the meeting.
printed the e-mail but testified that it may have been during
the
meeting
meeting.
and
that
she
first
read
the
during
the
18
At
J.A. 827.
Id.
Tucker added, I
Id.
If
Tucker
of
the
had
accommodation
called
the
request,
meeting
it
is
without
unlikely
knowledge
that
she
would
have
Moreover, when
Jacobs asked whether she was being fired because of the email, Tucker responded that it doesnt have anything to do
with the e-mail.
contents
of
the
Id.
e-mail,
is
unlikely
that
she
would
have
Accordingly, we reverse
III.
Merely concluding that disputed issues of fact exist as to
whether Jacobs was disabled and whether Tucker knew about her
accommodation request does not end our inquiry.
Rather, we must
retaliation;
accommodation.
and
(iii)
failure
to
provide
reasonable
A.
We first consider whether we should affirm summary judgment
on Jacobss disability discrimination claim.
To establish a claim for disability discrimination under
the ADA, a plaintiff must prove (1) that she has a disability,
(2) that she is a qualified individual for the employment in
question, and (3) that [her employer] discharged her (or took
other
adverse
employment
action)
because
of
her
disability.
EEOC v. Stowe-Pharr Mills, Inc., 216 F.3d 373, 377 (4th Cir.
2000).
McDonnell
Douglas
Corp.
(1973).
20
v.
Green,
411
U.S.
792,
802
1.
The AOC argues that Jacobs did not have a disability as a
matter of law.
10
nonexhaustive
including
42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(A).
list
speaking,
of
major
life
activities,
concentrating,
The ADA
thinking,
Id. 12102(2)(A).
The EEOC
29 C.F.R. 1630.2(i)(1)(i).
29 C.F.R.
whether
individual
discrimination
meets
the
has
definition
10
occurred,
of
not
disability.
whether
Id.
the
[T]he
Pub. L.
331.
Jacobs
alleges
that
her
social
anxiety
disorder
therefore
evidence
in
the
disability.
record
shows
The
that
AOC
first
Jacobs
argues
was
that
suffering
clearly
incorrect.
As
discussed
above,
the
no
from
This
testimony
of
not
substantially
limit
any
major
life
activity
because
This
ADA.
interacting
See
with
29
C.F.R.
others
as
1630.2(i)(1)(i)
a
major
life
(identifying
activity).
We
See
Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 427 (4th Cir.
11
to
the
precise
question
of
express
language,
the
activities
(emphasis
include,
added)).
We
interacting
statutes
whether
list
of
major
with
By
life
but
are
therefore
not
limited
conclude
that
to
. . . .
Congress
has
available
under
permits.
Id. at 332.
the
Act
as
broadly
as
the
text
in
others
the
as
same
major
category.
life
Identifying
activity
interacting
comparable
to
caring
with
for
We therefore defer to
social
ability
to
anxiety
interact
disorder
with
substantially
others.
Prior
to
limited
the
her
ADAAA,
See,
e.g., Pollard v. Highs of Balt., Inc., 281 F.3d 462, 467 (4th
Cir. 2002).
The
substantially
limits
the
ability
of
an
individual
to
population.
impairment
need
not
29
C.F.R.
prevent,
or
1630.2(j)(1)(ii).
significantly
or
12
An
severely
AOC
substantially
argues
limited
that
in
Jacobs
interacting
12
could
with
not
others
Id.
have
because
been
she
her
co-workers
outside
interaction on Facebook.
of
work,
and
engaged
in
social
The AOC
person
need
not
live
as
hermit
in
order
to
be
According
Thus, the fact that Jacobs may have endured social situations
does not per se preclude a finding that she had social anxiety
disorder.
Rather,
Jacobs
need
only
show
Id.
testimony
counter
that
working
the
front
she
endured
these
At a minimum, Jacobss
caused
her
extreme
issue.
14
Her
testimony
is
also
consistent
with
13
in
her
nine
months
dispositive--answering
constitutes
in
the
office
at
the
questions
performance
situation
that
is
also
front
is
hardly
counter
different
in
activity
constitutes
mitigating
measure
and
not
consider
in
determining
it
in
real
time)
the
we
are
existence
not
of
permitted
a
We
therefore
find
that
to
substantial
42 U.S.C.
reasonable
jury
26
could
conclude
that
Jacobs
was
substantially
limited
in
her
2.
We turn next to the second element of the prima facie case:
whether Jacobs has shown that she was a qualified individual for
the employment in question.
jury could find that, at the time of her discharge, Jacobs was
performing
her
job
at
legitimate expectations.
Educ.
Radio,
Inc.,
53
level
that
met
her
employers
55,
58,
6162
(4th
Cir.
1995)
received
written
numerous
reprimands
over
negative
three
performance
years,
was
evaluations
suspended
for
and
poor
performance, and conceded that she was not a model employee and
made too many personal phone calls).
argument
with
considerable
testimony
regarding
Jacobss
shortcomings as an employee.
Jacobs
responds
by
denying
these
allegations
and
noting
that she was promoted to the position of deputy clerk after only
a month on the job.
Co.,
Cir.
243
F.3d
846,
85253
(4th
2001)
(holding
that
an
issues
and
inappropriate
outbursts.
English,
the
AOC
inappropriate
total
lack
witnesses
outburst.
of
and
From
documentary
that
these
evidence
Jacobs
never
had
an
inconsistencies
and
the
of
Jacobss
alleged
poor
3.
Disputed issues of material fact also exist as to the third
element of the prima facie case--causation.
We disagree.
J.A. 823.
Jacobs, Tucker met with the three supervisors who had received
Jacobss
e-mailed
accommodation
request.
One
of
these
inferences
in
Jacobss
favor,
Drawing all
Tucker
and
the
See Schmidt v.
Safeway Inc., 864 F. Supp. 991, 997 (D. Or. 1994) (The employer
need only know the underlying facts, not the legal significance
of those facts.).
Contrary
to
the
AOCs
contention,
Jacobs
has
produced
favor
disclosing
accommodation.
of
See Ennis,
her
disability
and
requesting
an
finding
genuine
dispute
as
to
causation.
See
Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 252 F.3d 696, 706 (4th Cir.
2001)
(finding
that
temporal
proximity
29
alone
can
create
4.
Under the familiar McDonnell Douglas framework, the burden
then shifts to the AOC to produce evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason
for
terminating
of
non-discriminatory
Jacobs.
See
McDonnell
reasons
for
Jacobss
termination
including: Jacobs was not getting it; she had outbursts and
became angry with her trainer; she slept on the job; and she
failed to follow the appropriate procedure for calling in sick.
For summary judgment purposes, we thus find that the AOC has
satisfied this relatively modest burden.
The burden therefore shifts back to Jacobs to prove that
these
asserted
Sanderson
justifications
Plumbing
Prods.,
are
Inc.,
pretextual.
530
U.S.
133,
Reeves
143
v.
(2000).
justifications,
even
if
true,
are
post
hoc
Dennis v.
Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr. , Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 647 (4th Cir.
2002).
Jacobs
argues
that
the
AOCs
proffered
reasons
are
at
different
phases
of
the
litigation
and
(ii)
the
AOCs
fact
justifications
that
at
an
employer
different
times
has
for
[an
offered
different
adverse
employment
Sears
Tucker told Jacobs that she was being fired for not getting
it, for being slow, for lying about her ability to do the job,
and for her propensity for mistakes.
complaint,
Tucker
put
forward
J.A. 827.
additional
In her EEOC
reasons:
Jacobs
had
filed
claiming
that
suit,
the
Jacobs
AOC
slept
put
on
forward
the
job
J.A. 686.
still
and
more
failed
After
reasons,
to
follow
this
constellation
inconsistent,
many
of
of
the
justifications
purported
is
not
justifications
testified
reflect
her
contemporaneous
account
of
the
and
request
for
accommodation;
31
none
concern
the
Drawing
AOCs
undocumented
pretextual
and
were
and
not
uncorroborated
the
actual
justifications
reason
for
are
Jacobss
termination. 15
In
addition,
substantial
circumstantial
evidence
See
Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151 (stating that courts need not credit the
moving
partys
evidence
when
it
is
either
contradicted
or
time
deposition
during
discovery
testimony
contains
in
this
suit.
numerous
Second,
Tuckers
inconsistencies.
For
absent
from
the
unaltered
15
audio
recording
of
that
meeting.
with
skeptical
scrutiny.
(ellipsis
omitted)
(quoting Thomas v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 233 F.3d 326, 331
(5th Cir. 2000))).
Third,
Radewicz--who
testified
that
she
observed
Jacobs
sleeping at her desk and called Tucker while she was away on
vacation to let her know--also testified that she was coached by
Tucker
regarding
specific
details
16
of
her
testimony
on
the
would
have
to
believe
that
the
only
emergency
that
Jacobss
purportedly
sleeping
on
the
job.
We
therefore
16
has
set
out
prima
facie
case
of
disability
B.
We next consider whether we should affirm summary judgment
on Jacobss retaliatory discharge claim.
no
any
person
shall
discriminate
against
individual
for
engaged
in
42
activity;
namely,
requesting
an
Rhoads
A plaintiff need
not show that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See
id.
Whether
plaintiff
proceeds
by
direct
evidence
or
in
protected
activity
34
and,
(ii) because
of
this,
(iii) her
employer
took
an
adverse
employment
action
against
her. Id.
The
parties
do
not
dispute
that
the
first
and
third
As set
forth
as
below,
disputed
issues
of
material
fact
exist
to
Accordingly,
we
to
Jacobss
Jacobss
asserted
reverse
the
grant
of
summary
judgment
as
1.
In
assessing
causation,
we
begin
with
To avoid summary
marks
omitted).
What
is
required
is
evidence
of
at 607).
35
counter,
is
direct
evidence
that
Jacobs
was
treated
that
the
AOC
other
deputy
clerks
did
not
provide
such
It is
training
comparable
tenure
were
given
Accordingly, this
she
submitted
her
accommodation
request
constitute
J.A. 689.
17
Considering
this
evidence
as
whole,
we
find
that
no
and
indirect
evidence
that
Tucker
fired
Jacobs
in
Although Jacobs
opposed
to
discriminatory)
animus.
Tuckers
notes
and
2.
However,
this
is
summary
judgment
not
the
end
of
our
analysis
of
under
the
McDonnell
Douglas
burden-
shifting framework.
show
engaged
(1)
that
[s]he
in
protected
activity;
(2)
that
then
has
the
burden
to
rebut
the
The
presumption
of
The burden
burden of persuading the trier of fact that she was the victim
of retaliation.
Id.
that
that
Tucker
Jacobs
knew,
had
when
submitted
she
an
decided
to
terminate
accommodation
request.
We
was
therefore
terminated
accommodation
from
proceed
just
her
with
three
the
weeks
supervisors.
causation
after
This
inquiry.
requesting
close
an
temporal
the
causation
Haulbrook,
arguably
252
exists
element
F.3d
as
at
to
of
706
. . .
the
([A]
prima
facie
contested
[causation],
due
case.
issue
solely
See
of
to
fact
the
38
jury
could
evidence
retaliation claim.
of
conclude
pretext
to
that
Jacobs
has
ultimately
set
prevail
on
out
her
C.
Finally,
we
consider
whether
we
should
affirm
summary
To establish
perform
(4) that
the
the
essential
employer
functions
refused
to
make
of
the
such
position;
and
accommodations.
Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337, 345 (4th Cir. 2013)
(brackets
and
ellipsis
omitted).
For
the
reasons
discussed
reasonable
jury
find
that
with
reasonable
1.
We
start
by
determining
the
essential
functions
of
the
before
29
advertising
or
interviewing
applicants
for
42 U.S.C. 12111(8).
Other
40
of
people
who
hold
the
same
or
similar
job.
29
C.F.R.
1630.2(n)(3). 18
We begin with the written job description for the position:
[D]eputy clerks perform a variety of duties including: working
in
the
typing,
courtroom,
filing,
providing
cash
customer
receipting,
case
service,
file
data
entry,
indexing,
multi-
tasking and the ability to type 35-40 corrected wpm, and various
other tasks.
J.A. 678.
counter
is
where
new
employee
J.A. 434.
can
gain
the
most
best two places to start are filing and the front counter.).
Deputy clerks were trained for other roles based on seniority.
18
J.A. 259 (I worked at the front counter five days a week for
over one year before a new deputy clerk was hired and I was
moved off the front counter . . . .).
The record contains ample evidence from which a reasonable
jury could conclude that working at the front counter was not an
essential function of the position of deputy clerk.
description
does
not
indicate
that
all
deputy
The job
clerks
were
offices deputy clerks worked behind the front counter, and some
deputy clerks never performed this task.
employees
were
available
to
perform
that
function.
desk
was
essential
or
that
Jacobss
no
longer
working
We
2.
We
now
accommodate:
turn
to
whether,
the
heart
with
of
reasonable
claim
for
failure
accommodation,
to
Jacobs
steps.
Jacobs
First,
was
the
reasonable?
specific
Second,
accommodation
had
the
AOC
requested
granted
by
the
Id.
reasonable
accommodation
is
one
that
enables
[a
functions
1630.2(o)(1)(ii).
of
[a]
position.
29
C.F.R.
42
other
deputy
clerk
tasks.
This
proposed
which
deputy
clerk
was
assigned
to
which
task.
Cf.
19
employer
is
not
required
to
grant
even
reasonable
a transfer away from the front desk would eliminate the cause of
her social anxiety--having to answer questions from strangers
face-to-face
all
day--and
reasonable expectations.
enable
her
to
meet
her
employers
behaviors
were
manifestations
of
Jacobss
performance
There
is
no
uncontradicted
evidence
that
Jacobss
3.
The ADA imposes upon employers a good-faith duty to engage
[with their employees] in an interactive process to identify a
reasonable accommodation.
This duty
for
an
accommodation--even
if
the
employee
will
interactive
the
allow
position.
be
process
demonstrate
would
not
her
Id.
liable
if
the
existence
to
at
failure
employee
of
perform
347;
for
see
to
also
engage
Deily
in
the
fails
to
accommodation
essential
functions
v.
to
However, an
ultimately
reasonable
the
Id.
fails
Waste
that
of
Mgmt.
the
of
sister
reasonable
circuits
have
accommodation
in
held
that
failure
meeting
in
to
which
discuss
the
employer
1025,
(citing
1040
(6th
Cir.
2014)
EEOC
v.
45
Chevron
Phillips
It
Kennedy,
is
undisputed
Excell,
accommodation
office.
and
request
Both
that
each
of
Jacobss
Griffin--refused
with
Radewicz
her
and
until
Tucker
to
Tucker
supervisors--
discuss
Jacobss
returned
testified
that
to
the
Jacobss
therefore
Jacobs).
to
engage
in
the
interactive
process
with
From
therefore
conclude
that
summary
judgment
is
not
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse in part the district
courts
order
granting
summary
judgment
against
Jacobs
and
AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED FOR TRIAL
46