eeoc v. kohl's department stores, inc., 1st cir. (2014)
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
1/30
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
No. 14- 1268
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNI TY COMMI SSI ON,
Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,
v.
KOHL' S DEPARTMENT STORES, I NC. ,
Def endant , Appel l ee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE
[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]
Bef or e
Tor r uel l a, Thompson, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.
Donna J . Br usoski , At t or ney, Of f i ce of t he Gener al Counsel ,wi t h whom P. Davi d Lpez, Gener al Counsel , Car ol yn L. Wheel er ,Act i ng Associ at e Gener al Counsel , and J enni f er S. Gol dst ei n, Act i ngAssi st ant Gener al Counsel , wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .
Mel i nda J . Cat er i ne, wi t h whom Fi sher & Phi l l i ps LLP, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.
December 19, 2014
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
2/30
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant Equal Empl oyment
Oppor t uni t y Commi ssi on ( "EEOC") assert s t hat Appel l ee Kohl ' s
Depar t ment St or es, I nc. ( "Kohl ' s" ) r ef used t o pr ovi de f or mer
empl oyee Pamel a Manni ng ( "Manni ng") wi t h r easonabl e accommodat i ons
i n vi ol at i on of t he Amer i cans wi t h Di sabi l i t i es Act ( "ADA") , 42
U. S. C. 12112. The EEOC al so asser t s t hat by f ai l i ng t o compl y
wi t h t he ADA, Kohl ' s const r uct i vel y di schar ged Manni ng. The
di st r i ct cour t ent er ed summar y j udgment i n f avor of Kohl ' s on bot h
cl ai ms. We af f i r m.
I. Background
The f ol l owi ng undi sput ed f act s ar e summar i zed i n t he
l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he EEOC, t he nonmovi ng par t y. See, e. g. ,
McGr at h v. Tavar es, 757 F. 3d 20, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Manni ng
suf f er s f r om t ype I di abet es. I n Oct ober 2006, Manni ng was hi r ed
as a par t - t i me sal es associ at e at Kohl ' s. She hel d t hi s posi t i on
unt i l J anuar y 2008, when she was promot ed t o a f ul l - t i me sal es
associ at e. As a f ul l - t i me associ at e wor ki ng t hi r t y- si x t o f or t y
hour s per week, Manni ng wor ked pr edi ct abl e shi f t s whi ch usual l y
st ar t ed no ear l i er t han 9: 00 a. m. and ended no l at er t han 7: 00 p. m.
I n J anuar y 2010, Kohl ' s r est r uct ur ed i t s st af f i ng syst em
nat i onwi de, r esul t i ng i n a r educt i on i n hour s f or Manni ng' s
depar t ment . Manni ng mai nt ai ned her f ul l - t i me st at us because she
per f ormed work f or var i ous ot her depar t ment s dependi ng on t he
st or e' s needs.
-2-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
3/30
Due to the rest r uct ur i ng, Kohl ' s schedul ed Manni ng t o
wor k var i ous shi f t s at di f f er ent t i mes dur i ng t he day, and her
schedul ed hour s became unpr edi ct abl e as a r esul t . 1 For exampl e,
Manni ng wor ked mor e "swi ng shi f t s" - a ni ght shi f t f ol l owed by an
ear l y shi f t t he next day. I n Mar ch 2010, Manni ng i nf or med her
i mmedi at e super vi sor , Mi chel l e Bar nes ( "Bar nes" ) , t hat wor ki ng
er r at i c shi f t s was aggr avat i ng her di abet es and endanger i ng her
heal t h. Bar nes t ol d Manni ng t o obt ai n a doct or ' s not e t o suppor t
her accommodat i on r equest . Manni ng vi si t ed her endocr i nol ogi st ,
Dr . I r wi n Br odsky ( "Dr . Br odsky") , who det er mi ned t hat t he st r ess
Manni ng exper i enced due t o wor ki ng er r at i c hour s del et er i ousl y
cont r i but ed t o her hi gh gl ucose l evel s. Dr . Br odsky wr ot e a l et t er
t o t he st or e manager of Kohl ' s, Tr i ci a Car r ( "Car r ") , r equest i ng
t hat Kohl ' s schedul e Manni ng t o wor k "a pr edi ct abl e day shi f t
( 9a- 5p or 10a- 6p) , " R. at 74, so t hat Manni ng coul d bet t er manage
her st r ess, gl ucose l evel , and i nsul i n t her apy.
Upon r ecei vi ng Dr . Br odsky' s l et t er , Car r cont act ed
Kohl ' s human r esour ces depart ment seeki ng gui dance i n respondi ng t o
Manni ng' s r equest . She emai l ed a copy of t he l et t er t o Mi chael
1 Numer ous Kohl ' s empl oyees t est i f i ed t hr oughout di scover y t hatf ul l - t i me associ at es wer e expect ed and r equi r ed t o have "open
avai l abi l i t y, " meani ng t hey coul d be schedul ed t o work at any t i meof t he day or ni ght . See R. at 92, 95 ( Bar nes Dep. ) ; i d. at 178( Gamache Dep. ) ; i d. at 370- 71, 399- 401 ( Tr ei chl er Dep. ) ; i d. at 445( St . J ohn Dep. ) ; i d. at 453 ( Wi l ner Dep. ) . Ful l - t i me associ at eswer e al so r equi r ed to wor k t wo ni ght or eveni ng shi f t s each week,and ever y ot her weekend as wel l . See, e. g. , i d. at 370 ( Tr ei chl erDep. ) .
-3-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
4/30
Tr ei chl er ( "Tr ei chl er " ) i n Human Resour ces and t ol d hi m t hat
Manni ng had submi t t ed a wr i t t en doct or ' s " r equest [ ] t hat I
accommodate [ Manni ng] wi t h day t i me hr s onl y. " I d. at 75.
Tr ei chl er t ol d Car r t hat wi t h Manni ng "bei ng a f ul l - t i me
associ at e[ , ] she woul d st i l l need t o be r equi r ed t o wor k ni ght s and
weekends and that def i ni t el y we woul d make sure she had no swi ng
shi f t s, [ and] t hat we woul d make sur e . . . t hat she r eal l y t ook
her br eaks. " I d. at 160 ( Car r Dep. ) . Tr ei chl er asked Car r t o meet
wi t h Manni ng and pr opose t he no- swi ng- shi f t opt i on. Car r ' s
deposi t i on t est i mony descr i bi ng t hi s sequence of event s i s
consi st ent wi t h an emai l she r ecei ved f r omTr ei chl er r espondi ng t o
her r equest f or gui dance, whi ch st at ed, i n par t : "Cl ear l y we can
not have [ Manni ng] not work ni ght s. BUT, we can work wi t h her t o
avoi d t he ' swi ng shi f t s' - A [ si c] cl ose f ol l owed by an open. " I d.
at 76.
Subsequent l y, Car r and Barnes ar r anged t o meet wi t h
Manni ng on March 31, 2010, t o di scuss Manni ng' s concerns. Dur i ng
t hei r meet i ng, Manni ng r equest ed "a st eady schedul e, [ but ] not
speci f i cal l y 9: 00 t o 5: 00. " I d. at 282 ( Manni ng Dep. ) . As she
descr i bed i t , " I was aski ng f or a mi dday shi f t , what I had bef or e,
t he hour s t hat I had bef or e [ t he depar t ment al r est r uct ur i ng] . " I d.
at 281 ( Manni ng Dep. ) . Manni ng al so expr essed a wi l l i ngness t o
wor k on weekends.
-4-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
5/30
Carr r esponded t hat she had spoken t o "hi gher- ups" at t he
corporate management l evel , and t hat she coul d not pr ovi de a
consi st ent l y st eady ni ne- t o- f i ve schedul e. 2 Manni ng became upset ,
2 Thi s i s wher e t he di ssent par t s ways wi t h our vi ew of t her ecor d. The di ssent st at es t hat Car r f ai l ed t o of f er Manni ng anyal t ernat i ve accommodat i on at t he March 31 meet i ng, even though shehad been expr essl y aut hor i zed t o of f er Manni ng a schedul e wi t h noswi ng shi f t s. The di ssent vi ews Car r ' s f ai l ur e t o br i ng up t heswi ng shi f t s as evi dence t hat woul d al l ow a j ur y to f i nd t hatKohl ' s was not maki ng a good f ai t h ef f ort t o engage wi t h Manni ng.We di sagr ee. Whi l e a r easonabl e j ur y coul d have f ound t hat Car rwas aut hor i zed t o of f er "no swi ng shi f t s, " and t hat she di d notvol unt eer t hi s i nf or mat i on at her meet i ng wi t h Manni ng, we ar e
unabl e to ascr i be the same si gni f i cance t o these f act s as does t hedi ssent .
Manni ng' s r equest ed accommodat i on was, as st at ed by Dr .Br odsky, "a pr edi ct abl e day shi f t . " I ndeed, at hi s deposi t i on Dr .Br odsky agr eed t hat i n hi s l et t er t o Kohl ' s he "asked t hat Ms.Manni ng be al l owed t o wor k a pr edi ct abl e wor k shi f t ei t her ni ne tof i ve or t en t o f i ve. " He f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat t he "onl ysi t uat i on . . . about whi ch [ he] r ender ed an opi ni on i s t he onet hat [ he] l i st ed i n t he l et t er , " and he agr eed t hat "any var i at i onsbeyond t he ni ne a. m. t o f i ve p. m. or t he [ t en] a. m. t o si x p. m.[ schedul e] woul d r equi r e [ hi m] t o have a f ur t her di scussi on wi t h
Ms. Manni ng[ . ] " Manni ng her sel f sai d t hat she r equest ed "a st eadyschedul e, not speci f i cal l y 9: 00 t o 5: 00. " No one i s i n a bet t erposi t i on t han Manni ng and her doct or t o t el l us what Manni ng' sr equest ed accommodat i on act ual l y was, and t he evi dence on t hi spoi nt i s uncont est ed. Manni ng was not si mpl y aski ng f or "no swi ngshi f t s, " she was i n f act l ooki ng t o be r el i eved of t he obl i gat i ont o wor k ni ght shi f t s as wel l .
The uncont est ed evi dence i n t he r ecor d al so demonst r at es t hatCar r was never aut hor i zed t o gr ant Manni ng' s request . I ndeed, t heonl y evi dence i s t hat f or Manni ng t o cont i nue wor ki ng as af ul l - t i me associ at e, Kohl ' s woul d cont i nue t o r equi r e Manni ng t o
wor k ni ght s. Thus, t her e i s no evi dence t hat Car r r ef used t oextend a request ed r easonabl e accommodat i on t hat she had beenaut hor i zed t o gi ve. Thi s i s not a case i n whi ch an empl oyerpr i vat el y deci des t hat i t woul d gr ant a request ed accommodat i on,but t hen el ect s not t o of f er i t as par t of st r ong- ar m negot i at i ngt act i cs i n t he hopes t hat t he empl oyee woul d accept somethi ng l esst han he or she or i gi nal l y r equest ed.
-5-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
6/30
t ol d Carr t hat she had no choi ce but t o qui t because she woul d go
i nt o ket oaci dosi s3 or a coma i f she cont i nued wor ki ng unpr edi ct abl e
hour s, put her st or e keys on t he t abl e, wal ked out of Car r ' s
of f i ce, and sl ammed t he door . Concerned, Carr f ol l owed Manni ng
i nt o t he br eak room out si de, aski ng what she coul d do t o hel p.
Dur i ng t hi s conver sat i on, Car r at t empt ed t o cal m Manni ng down and
r equest ed that she reconsi der her r esi gnat i on and di scuss ot her
pot ent i al accommodat i ons. Manni ng r esponded, "Wel l , you j ust t ol d
me Corporate woul dn' t do anyt hi ng f or me. " I d. at 458- 59 ( Manni ng
Medi cal Exami nat i on) . Manni ng di d not di scuss any al t er nat i ve
accommodat i ons wi t h Carr , but i nst ead cl eaned out her l ocker and
l ef t t he bui l di ng. A f ew days l at er , on Apr i l 2, 2010, Manni ng
cont act ed t he EEOC, seeki ng t o f i l e a di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m.
On Apr i l 9, 2010, Car r cal l ed Manni ng t o request t hat she
r et hi nk her r esi gnat i on and consi der al t er nat i ve accommodat i ons f or
bot h par t - t i me and f ul l - t i me wor k. Manni ng asked Car r about her
schedul e, and Car r i nf or med her t hat she woul d need to consul t wi t h
t he cor por ate of f i ce about any accommodat i ons. Af t er t hi s phone
Gi ven t he st at e of t hi s r ecor d, we ar e unabl e t o agr ee wi t ht he di ssent ' s vi ew of Kohl ' s negot i at i ng t act i cs. We do notbel i eve a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat Kohl ' s f ai l ed t o
negot i at e i n good f ai t h based on Car r ' s aut hor i zat i on t o of f er "noswi ng shi f t s. "
3 Di abet i c ket oaci dosi s i s a ser i ous medi cal compl i cat i on t hat i scaused by l ow i nsul i n l evel s. I n r esponse, t he body bur ns f at t yaci ds, causi ng pot ent i al l y danger ous l evel s of aci di t y t o bui l d upi n t he bl oodst r eam.
-6-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
7/30
cal l , Manni ng had no f ur t her cont act wi t h anyone at Kohl ' s.
Because i t had not hear d f r omManni ng, Kohl ' s t r eat ed her depar t ur e
as vol unt ary and t ermi nated her empl oyment l ater t hat mont h.
The EEOC br ought t hi s cur r ent sui t on Manni ng' s behal f i n
t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Mai ne i n
August 2011. The di st r i ct cour t ent ered summary j udgment i n f avor
of Kohl ' s, concl udi ng on t he ADA cl ai m t hat Manni ng had f ai l ed t o
engage i n an i nt er act i ve pr ocess i n good f ai t h and on t he
const r uct i ve di schar ge cl ai mt hat a r easonabl e per son i n Manni ng' s
posi t i on woul d not have f el t compel l ed t o r esi gn.
II. Discussion
The EEOC appeal s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y
j udgment i n f avor of Kohl ' s on both t he ADA di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m
and t he const r uct i ve di schar ge cl ai m. We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s
gr ant of summar y j udgment de novo. E. g. , Acevedo- Par r i l l a v.
Novar t i s Ex- Lax, I nc. , 696 F. 3d 128, 136 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . We dr aw
"' al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he nonmovi ng par t y, ' " i d.
( quot i ng Snchez- Rodr guez v. AT & T Mobi l i t y P. R. , I nc. , 673 F. 3d
1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ) , "' wi t hout def er ence t o . . . t he di st r i ct
cour t , ' " i d. ( quot i ng Hughes v. Bos. Mut . Li f e I ns. Co. , 26 F. 3d
264, 268 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) .
Summary j udgment i s appr opr i ate i f t he movi ng par t y
demonst r ates t hat t her e i s " no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al
f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. "
-7-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
8/30
Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ; accor d Acevedo- Par r i l l a, 696 F. 3d at 136.
Ther e i s no genui ne di sput e of mat er i al f act when t he movi ng par t y
demonst r ates t hat t he opposi ng par t y has f ai l ed " t o make a showi ng
suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he exi st ence of an el ement essent i al t o
t hat par t y' s case, and on whi ch t hat par t y wi l l bear t he bur den of
pr oof at t r i al . " Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t , 477 U. S. 317, 322
( 1986) . We now exami ne each of t he EEOC' s cl ai ms, i n t ur n.
A. The ADA Discrimination Claim
To est abl i sh a case of di sabi l i t y di scr i mi nat i on under
t he ADA, t he EEOC must est abl i sh t hat : " ' ( 1) [ Manni ng] i s di sabl ed
wi t hi n the meani ng of t he ADA, ( 2) [ Manni ng] was abl e t o per f or m
t he essent i al f unct i ons of t he j ob wi t h or wi t hout a r easonabl e
accommodat i on, and ( 3) [ Kohl ' s] , despi t e knowi ng of [ Manni ng] ' s
di sabi l i t y, di d not r easonabl y accommodat e i t . ' " Freadman v.
Met r o. Pr op. & Cas. I ns. Co. , 484 F. 3d 91, 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)
( quot i ng Rocaf or t v. I BM Cor p. , 334 F. 3d 115, 119 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) .
The EEOC' s f ai l ure t o sat i sf y any one of t hese el ement s war r ant s
t he ent r y of summary j udgment agai nst i t as a mat t er of l aw. See
Cel otex Corp. , 477 U. S. at 32223. We bypass any di scussi on about
t he f i r st t wo el ement s and pr oceed di r ect l y to t he t hi r d el ement ,
t he basi s f or our af f i r mance. 4
4 The di st r i ct cour t consi der ed but r ej ect ed t he ar gument byKohl ' s t hat Manni ng was not qual i f i ed t o per f or m t he "essent i alf unct i ons" of her j ob ( el ement ( 2) ) . I nst ead, t he di st r i ct cour tgrant ed summary j udgment t o Kohl ' s under t he accommodat i on i ssue( el ement ( 3) ) because i t f ound t hat Manni ng f ai l ed t o engage i n t he
-8-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
9/30
Under t he t hi r d el ement , an empl oyee' s r equest f or
accommodat i on somet i mes5 cr eat es " a dut y on t he par t of t he
empl oyer t o engage i n an i nt er act i ve pr ocess. " See Eni ca v.
Pr i nci pi , 544 F. 3d 328, 338 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . The i nt er act i ve
pr ocess i nvol ves an i nf ormal di al ogue between the empl oyee and the
empl oyer i n whi ch t he t wo par t i es di scuss t he i ssues af f ect i ng t he
empl oyee and pot ent i al r easonabl e accommodat i ons t hat mi ght addr ess
t hose i ssues. See 29 C. F. R. 1630. 2( o) ( 3) . I t r equi r es bi l at er al
cooperat i on and communi cat i on. See Eni ca, 544 F. 3d at 339.
We must emphasi ze t hat i t i s i mper at i ve t hat bot h the
empl oyer and t he empl oyee have a duty t o engage i n good f ai t h, and
t hat empt y gest ur es on t he par t of t he empl oyer wi l l not sat i sf y
t he good f ai t h st andar d. I f an empl oyer engages i n an i nt er act i ve
pr ocess wi t h t he empl oyee, i n good f ai t h, f or t he pur pose of
di scussi ng al t ernat i ve r easonabl e accommodat i ons, but t he empl oyee
f ai l s t o cooper at e i n t he pr ocess, t hen t he empl oyer cannot be hel d
l i abl e under t he ADA f or a f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de r easonabl e
i nt er act i ve pr ocess i n good f ai t h. We pr oceed di r ect l y t o t hei nt er act i ve pr ocess anal ysi s because "[ w] e may uphol d an ent r y ofsummary j udgement on any basi s apparent f r omt he r ecor d. " McGr ath,757 F. 3d at 25.
5 Thi s cour t does not r egar d an empl oyer ' s par t i ci pat i on i n t hei nt er act i ve pr ocess as an absol ut e requi r ement under t he ADA.I nst ead, we have hel d t hat we "r esol ve t he i ssue on a case- by- casebasi s. " Kvor j ak v. Mai ne, 259 F. 3d 48, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . I nt hi s case, we do not need t o addr ess whether Kohl ' s had a dut y t oengage i n an i nt er act i ve pr ocess, si nce i t di d i n f act i ni t i at esuch a di al ogue wi t h Manni ng.
-9-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
10/30
accommodat i ons. See, e. g. , i d. ( " [ T] he pr ocess r equi r es open
communi cat i on by both part i es, and an empl oyer wi l l not be hel d
l i abl e i f i t makes ' r easonabl e ef f or t s bot h t o communi cat e wi t h t he
empl oyee and provi de accommodat i ons based on t he i nf ormat i on i t
possessed . . . . ' " ( l ast al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Phel ps
v. Opt i ma Heal t h, I nc. , 251 F. 3d 21, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) ) ;
Loul seged v. Akzo Nobel I nc. , 178 F. 3d 731, 736 ( 5t h Ci r . 1999)
( " [ A] n empl oyer cannot be f ound t o have vi ol ated t he ADA when
r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he br eakdown of t he ' i nf or mal , i nt er act i ve
pr ocess' i s t r aceabl e t o the empl oyee and not t he empl oyer . "
( quot i ng Beck v. Uni v. of Wi s. Bd. of Regent s, 75 F. 3d 1130, 1135
( 7t h Ci r . 1996) ) ) .
Her e, t he r ecor d shows t hat af t er Manni ng l ef t t he
meet i ng on March 31, 2010, Carr pur sued her , at t empt ed t o cal mher
down, asked her t o r econsi der her r esi gnat i on, and r equest ed t hat
she cont empl ate al t ernat i ve accommodat i ons. Manni ng r ef used,
i nst ead conf i r mi ng t hat she qui t by cl eani ng out her l ocker and
depar t i ng t he bui l di ng. Ten days l at er , Car r cal l ed Manni ng,
r epeat i ng her r equest f or Manni ng t o reconsi der her r esi gnat i on and
t o cont empl at e al t ernat i ve accommodat i ons. Manni ng never r esponded
-10-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
11/30
t o Car r . 6 Appr oxi mat el y one week af t er t hi s phone cal l , Kohl ' s
t ermi nat ed Manni ng' s empl oyment .
Whi l e Kohl ' s r esponse t o Manni ng' s accommodat i on r equest
may wel l have been ham- handed, based on t he undi sput ed f act s, we
cannot f i nd t hat i t s subsequent over t ur es shoul d be const r ued as
empty gest ures. 7 The r ef usal t o gi ve Manni ng' s speci f i c r equest ed
accommodat i on does not necessar i l y amount t o bad f ai t h, so l ong as
t he empl oyer makes an ear nest at t empt t o di scuss other potent i al
6
The r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat a member of t he EEOC' s st af f may havet ol d Manni ng not t o cont i nue t o par t i ci pat e i n t he i nt er act i vepr ocess f ol l owi ng her pr eci pi t ous depar t ur e f r om Kohl ' s. Dur i ngher medi cal exami nat i on, when asked about Carr ' s Apr i l 9, 2010,phone cal l t o Manni ng, r equest i ng t hat she r econsi der herr esi gnat i on, t hi s was her r esponse:
MS. MANNI NG: . . . I j ust want ed t o get of f t he phone as f astas I coul d. And t hen I cal l ed - -DR. BOURNE: You coul d not t al k?MS. MANNI NG: No. And I t ol d her t hat I coul dn' t t al k.DR. BOURNE: Per EEOC' s di r ect i ons?
MS. MANNI NG: Yes.
R. at 461- 62 ( Manni ng Medi cal Exami nat i on) .
Assumi ng t hi s i s what happened, Manni ng shoul d have beendi r ect ed to do pr eci sel y t he opposi t e: she shoul d have beeni nf ormed t hat she was obl i ged t o cont i nue t o engage wi t h t hei nt er act i ve pr ocess i n good f ai t h. I t t hus may wel l be t hatManni ng' s cur r ent pr edi cament i s due t o er r oneous advi ce pr ovi dedby t he EEOC. Such a f act , i f t r ue, woul d be t r oubl i ng, gi ven t heEEOC' s dut y t o i nvest i gat e di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms and aut hor i zel awsui t s. One woul d expect t hat t he EEOC shoul d know t hat an
empl oyee' s f ai l ur e t o cooper at e i n an i nt er act i ve pr ocess woul ddoom her ADA cl ai m.
7 The EEOC suggest s t hat Kohl ' s di d not act i n good f ai t h becauseCarr ' s at t empt s t o r econci l e wi t h Manni ng were di si ngenuous "empt ygest ur es. " As di scussed bel ow, t he r ecor d does not suppor t t hi sasser t i on.
-11-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
12/30
r easonabl e accommodat i ons. Her e, Kohl ' s r ef used t o pr ovi de
Manni ng' s pr ef er r ed schedul e, but was wi l l i ng t o di scuss other
schedul es t hat woul d bal ance Manni ng' s needs wi t h t hose of t he
st or e. Manni ng r ef used t o hear what Kohl ' s had t o of f er . "' I t i s
di f f i cul t t o j udge the reasonabl eness of accommodat i ons when t he
empl oyee wi t hdr aws bef ore we can say wi t h any aut hor i t y what t hese
accommodat i ons woul d have been. ' " Gr i f f i n v. Uni t ed Par cel Ser v. ,
I nc. , 661 F. 3d 216, 225 ( 5t h Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Loul seged, 178
F. 3d at 734) . Manni ng' s r ef usal t o par t i ci pat e i n t he i nt er act i ve
pr ocess i s t he reason why the r ecor d l acks f act s r egar di ng what
r easonabl e accommodat i ons Kohl ' s mi ght have of f ered had Manni ng
cooper at ed. We concl ude t hat Kohl ' s act ed i n good f ai t h when i t
i ni t i at ed an i nt er act i ve pr ocess and di spl ayed i t s wi l l i ngness t o
cooper at e wi t h Manni ng, not once but t wi ce, t o no ef f ect . See,
e. g. , Phel ps, 251 F. 3d at 28.
Fur t her mor e, we concl ude t hat Manni ng' s r ef usal t o
par t i ci pat e i n f ur t her di scussi ons wi t h Kohl ' s was not a good- f ai t h
ef f or t t o par t i ci pat e i n an i nt er act i ve pr ocess. See, e. g. , Eni ca,
544 F. 3d at 339 ( quot i ng Beck, 75 F. 3d at 1135) ; Phel ps, 251 F. 3d
at 28. I ndeed, because Manni ng chose not t o f ol l ow up wi t h Car r ' s
of f er t o di scuss al t er nat i ve accommodat i ons, Manni ng was pr i mar i l y
r esponsi bl e f or t he br eakdown i n t he i nt er act i ve pr ocess. 8 See
8 The EEOC ci t es t o Col wel l v. Ri t e Ai d Cor p. , 602 F. 3d 495 ( 3dCi r . 2010) i n suppor t of i t s cl ai m t hat t he r ef usal by Kohl ' s t oaccommodate Manni ng' s r equest s const i t ut ed a t ermi nat i on of t he
-12-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
13/30
Phel ps, 251 F. 3d at 27 ( hol di ng pl ai nt i f f r esponsi bl e f or t he
br eakdown i n t he i nt er act i ve pr ocess when she " f ai l ed t o cooper at e
i n such a pr ocess" ) ; see al so Gr i f f i n, 661 F. 3d at 225 ( quot i ng
Loul seged, 178 F. 3d at 734) .
I n sum, when an empl oyer i ni t i at es an i nt er act i ve
di al ogue i n good f ai t h wi t h an empl oyee f or t he pur pose of
di scussi ng pot ent i al r easonabl e accommodat i ons f or t he empl oyee' s
di sabi l i t y, t he empl oyee must engage i n a good- f ai t h ef f or t t o wor k
out pot ent i al sol ut i ons wi t h t he empl oyer pr i or t o seeki ng j udi ci al
r edr ess. Manni ng di d not do so i n t hi s case, and t her ef or e, t he
EEOC has f ai l ed " t o make a showi ng suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he
exi st ence of an el ement essent i al t o [ i t s] case . . . . " See
Cel ot ex Cor p. , 477 U. S. at 322. Accor di ngl y, we hol d t hat summar y
j udgment agai nst t he EEOC on t he ADA di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m i s
warr ant ed as a mat t er of l aw. 9
B. The Constructive Discharge Claim
To est abl i sh a cl ai mof const r uct i ve di schar ge, t he EEOC
must show t hat Manni ng' s worki ng condi t i ons were "so onerous,
abusi ve, or unpl easant t hat a reasonabl e per son i n [ her ] posi t i on
i nt er act i ve pr ocess. We f i nd Col wel l di st i ngui shabl e, because i nt hat case, t he evi dence i ndi cat ed t hat t he empl oyer may have been
mor e r esponsi bl e f or a f ai l ur e t o communi cat e. See i d. at 50708.Here, Kohl ' s at t empt ed t o communi cate wi t h Manni ng t wi ce, t o noeffect.
9 We must emphasi ze t hat our hol di ng i s l i mi t ed t o t he hi ghl yi di osyncr at i c f act s of t hi s case and shoul d not be i nt er pr et ed asupset t i ng our cur r ent ADA j ur i sprudence.
-13-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
14/30
woul d have f el t compel l ed t o r esi gn. " Sur ez v. Puebl o I nt ' l ,
I nc. , 229 F. 3d 49, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( ci t i ng Vega v. Kodak
Car i bbean, Lt d. , 3 F. 3d 476, 480 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ) . I n ot her wor ds,
wor k condi t i ons must have been so i nt ol er abl e t hat Manni ng' s
deci si on t o r esi gn was "voi d of choi ce or f r ee wi l l " - - t hat her
onl y opt i on was t o qui t . See Tor r ech- Her nndez v. Gen. El ec. Co. ,
519 F. 3d 41, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Thi s st andar d i s ent i r el y
obj ect i ve - - we do not put wei ght on t he empl oyee' s subj ect i ve
bel i ef s, "' no mat t er how si ncer el y hel d. ' " I d. at 52 ( quot i ng
Mar r er o v. Goya of P. R. , I nc. , 304 F. 3d 7, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ) .
Her e, t he EEOC f ai l s t o meet t hi s obj ect i ve " r easonabl e
person" st andard. The EEOC argues t hat Manni ng' s f ear s t hat she
woul d go i nt o ket oaci dosi s or sl i p i nt o a coma wer e obj ect i vel y
r easonabl e because her doct or t ol d her t hat cont i nui ng t o wor k
er r at i c shi f t s coul d cause t hese ser i ous medi cal compl i cat i ons.
Even assumi ng, arguendo, t hat bei ng concerned about t hese heal t h
i ssues i s obj ect i vel y reasonabl e, we st i l l f i nd t hat Manni ng' s
choi ce t o r esi gn was "gr ossl y pr emat ur e, as i t was based ent i r el y
on [ her ] own wor st - case- scenar i o assumpt i on" t hat Kohl ' s woul d not
pr ovi de her wi t h accommodat i ons. See i d. Accor di ng t o t he r ecord,
af t er Manni ng l ef t t he meet i ng i n Car r ' s of f i ce on Mar ch 31, 2010,
Car r f ol l owed Manni ng i nt o t he br eak r oom. Car r gave Manni ng her
f i r st oppor t uni t y t o r econsi der her r esi gnat i on and of f er ed t o
di scuss ot her potent i al accommodat i ons wi t h Manni ng. Manni ng
-14-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
15/30
i gnor ed t hi s f i r st over t ur e, despi t e seei ng t hat Car r was wi l l i ng
t o di scuss and negot i at e al t ernat i ve accommodat i ons. On Apr i l 9,
2010, Carr cal l ed Manni ng over t he phone, r epeat i ng her r equest
t hat Manni ng r econsi der bot h her r esi gnat i on and her r ef usal t o
di scuss al t er nat i ve accommodat i ons. Manni ng al so i gnor ed t hi s
second over t ur e.
" [ A] n empl oyee i s obl i ged not t o assume t he worst , and
not t o j ump t o concl usi ons t oo [ qui ckl y] . " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on
marks omi t t ed) . Here, Manni ng not onl y j umped t o a concl usi on
pr emat ur el y, but she al so act i vel y di sr egar ded t wo oppor t uni t i es t o
r esol ve her i ssues. We agr ee wi t h t he Sevent h Ci r cui t t hat a
r easonabl e person woul d si mpl y not f eel "compel l ed t o r esi gn" when
her empl oyer of f er ed to di scuss ot her wor k ar r angement s wi t h her .
See EEOC v. Sear s, Roebuck & Co. , 233 F. 3d 432, 441 ( 7t h Ci r . 2000)
( "I nst ead of di scussi ng t he new wor k schedul e[ , ] . . . [ t he
empl oyee] r esi gned. Whi l e t hi s was cer t ai nl y her pr er ogat i ve, we
do not bel i eve t hi s was her onl y opt i on. . . . [ W] e cannot concl ude
t hat a reasonabl e person i n her posi t i on woul d have been compel l ed
t o resi gn. " ) ; see al so Tor r ech- Her nndez, 519 F. 3d at 50- 51.
Because we f i nd t hat a reasonabl e per son i n Manni ng' s posi t i on
woul d not have concl uded t hat depar t i ng f r om her j ob was her onl y
avai l abl e choi ce, t he EEOC has f ai l ed t o meet t he "r easonabl e
per son" el ement f or a const r uct i ve di schar ge cl ai m. We
-15-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
16/30
consequent l y hol d that summary j udgment agai nst t he EEOC on t he
const r uct i ve di schar ge cl ai m i s war r ant ed as a mat t er of l aw.
III. Conclusion
We ar e sympathet i c t o Manni ng' s medi cal i ssues.
Moreover , we note t hat had t he mat t er ended at t he ref usal by
Kohl ' s t o gr ant Manni ng' s r equest f or a st eady work schedul e,
Manni ng mi ght wel l have had vi abl e causes of act i on. Yet , f or bot h
of her cl ai ms, we cannot i gnor e t he mul t i pl e subsequent
oppor t uni t i es t hat Kohl ' s of f er ed t o Manni ng t o di scuss al t er nat i ve
r easonabl e accommodat i ons. Consequent l y, t he f act s, even when r ead
i n t he EEOC' s f avor , subst ant i at e nei t her a cl ai m f or ADA
di scri mi nat i on nor a cl ai mf or const r uct i ve di schar ge. I t f ol l ows
t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y gr ant ed summar y j udgment i n f avor
of Kohl ' s on bot h cl ai ms.
AFFIRMED.
-Dissenting Opinion Follows-
-16-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
17/30
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge, dissenting. A r easonabl e j ur y
coul d pr oper l y vi ew t he f act s i n t hi s case ver y di f f er ent l y t han
does t he maj or i t y. So vi ewed, t hose f act s shoul d pr ecl ude summary
j udgment unl ess we ar e t o bl ess as a mat t er of l aw a negot i at i ng
t act i c t hat i s unf ai r t o di sabl ed empl oyees who r easonabl y bel i eve
t hat t hey conf r ont i mmi nent ser i ous har mi f an accommodat i on i s not
pr ovi ded. To expl ai n why t hi s i s so, I begi n wi t h a br i ef exampl e
of how a r easonabl y compet ent pl ai nt i f f ' s l awyer woul d f ai r l y
descr i be t he wel l - suppor t ed f act s t o a j ur y, and I t hen f ol l ow wi t h
an anal ysi s of why t hose f act s coul d suppor t a ver di ct i n EEOC' s
f avor . Fi nal l y, I expl ai n why i t f ol l ows t hat t he const r ucti ve
di schar ge cl ai m shoul d sur vi ve as wel l .
I. The Facts
Fendi ng of f t he st r ess- i nduced exacer bat i on of a l i f e-
t hr eat eni ng condi t i on, and bel i evi ng that she f aced i mmi nent
ser i ous har m i f she coul d not secur e an accommodat i on, Manni ng
r equest ed l ess er r at i c wor k hour s- - especi al l y no swi ng shi f t s- - t o
al l ow her t o wor k wi t hout suf f er i ng har mf ul medi cal consequences.
Kohl ' s demanded t hat Manni ng pr ovi de a note f r omher doctor , whi ch
she t hen di d. Dr . Br odsky' s not e f ocused on t he pr obl em caused
Manni ng by swi ng shi f t s i n par t i cul ar . He expl ai ned t hat , as
someone wi t h t ype 1 di abet es, Manni ng " t akes f i ve dai l y i nj ect i ons
of i nsul i n t hat must be t i med t o mat ch her meal s and act i vi t y, " but
t hat she was "havi ng di f f i cul t y mat chi ng her i nsul i n act i on t o her
-17-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
18/30
wor k schedul e i n your st or e when she swi ngs shi f t s ( e. g. wor ki ng
l at e shi f t one day and r et ur ni ng f or an ear l y shi f t t he next day) . "
Dr . Br odsky' s not e f ur t her i nf or med Kohl ' s t hat " [ a] mor e
pr edi ct abl e and r egul ar schedul e shoul d hel p smoot h her bl ood sugar
cont r ol and hel p pr event ser i ous compl i cat i ons of di abet es. "
Al t hough t he not e ref er enced, par ent het i cal l y, 9: 00 a. m. t o 5: 00
p. m. and 10: 00 a. m. t o 6: 00 p. m. shi f t s, a f act - f i nder coul d
r easonabl y concl ude t hat t he doct or of f er ed t hose shi f t s si mpl y as
accept abl e exampl es, and t hat Manni ng merel y request ed a consi st ent
day- t o- day schedul e as a way of avoi di ng swi ng shi f t s. The
di st r i ct cour t t her ef or e pr oper l y oper at ed on t he pr emi se that
Manni ng' s r equest was f or a "mor e regul ar and pr edi ct abl e
schedul e, " somewhere between t he hour s of 6: 00 a. m. and 8: 00 p. m. ,
t hat di d not i ncl ude swi ng shi f t s. 10
Manni ng repeat ed her r equest f or a st eady work schedul e
and no swi ng shi f t s dur i ng t he meet i ng wi t h st ore manager Carr and
assi st ant st or e manager Bar nes. I n r esponse, Car r and Bar nes l ef t
Manni ng wi t h t he i mpr essi on t hat no i ndi vi dual accommodat i on woul d
10 Rather t han f ocus on how Kohl ' s may have r easonabl y i nt erpr etedManni ng' s r equest , i ncl udi ng Dr . Br odsky' s not e, t he maj or i t y askst he wr ong quest i on: How di d Dr . Br odsky i nt er pr et hi s not e at hi s
l at er deposi t i on? The maj or i t y t hen i l l ogi cal l y decl ar es t hati nt er pr et at i on t o be the readi ng t hat a j ur y must assume Kohl ' sact ual l y adopt ed. I n any event , as I expl ai n i n t he body of t hi sdi ssent , i nf r a, a j ur y coul d easi l y f i nd Kohl ' s r esponsi bl e f or t hebr eakdown i n t he i nt er act i ve pr ocess not because i t r ej ect edManni ng' s r equest ( however i nt er pr et ed) , but because i t f ai l ed t oof f er even t he accommodat i on i t determi ned i t coul d make.
-18-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
19/30
be f or t hcomi ng. Speci f i cal l y, Car r t ol d Manni ng t hat i f she gave
Manni ng t he schedul i ng accommodat i on Manni ng want ed, t hen she woul d
have t o do t hat f or ever yone el se at t he st or e. Bar nes rei nf or ced
t hi s poi nt by t el l i ng Manni ng t hat "we wer e keepi ng t o consi st ency
i n r egar ds t o al l f ul l t i mer s i n t he bui l di ng and t hei r schedul es. "
Car r f ur t her expl ai ned t hat " t he needs of t he busi ness di ct at e[ d]
when [ Manni ng] wor k[ ed] " and "woul d r equi r e at t i mes shi f t s t hat
ar e ear l y, days, mi ds and cl oses. " These st at ement s, t aken
t oget her , basi cal l y t ol d Manni ng t hat Kohl ' s woul d not of f er
Manni ng any schedul i ng accommodat i on t hat was not both avai l abl e to
al l other worker s and compat i bl e wi t h a busi ness need t o have
f l uct uat i ng shi f t s . 11 As a concr et e demonst r at i on of t hi s poi nt ,
Carr and Barnes f l at l y r ej ected t he accommodat i on Manni ng request ed
and, i mpor t ant l y, of f er ed her no al t er nat i ve accommodat i on even
t hough Kohl ' s- - t hr ough HR manager Trei chl er - - had al r eady expr essl y
aut hor i zed Car r t o of f er Manni ng a schedul e wi t h no swi ng shi f t s,
t he avai l abi l i t y of whi ch di d not t ur n on i t s bei ng of f er ed t o al l
ot her empl oyees as Car r f al sel y t ol d Manni ng.
11 The maj or i t y cor r ect l y not es t hat Kohl ' s empl oyees t est i f i edt hat f ul l - t i me empl oyees wer e r equi r ed t o wor k two ni ght shi f t s perweek and have "open avai l abi l i t y, " or t he f l exi bi l i t y t o wor k anyt i me of t he day, al t hough i t appear s t hat t hi s schedul i ng
expect at i on was not r ecor ded i n wr i t i ng. However , t her e i s al sot est i mony i n t he r ecor d t hat except i ons t o t hi s schedul i ng pr act i cewere "pr et t y regul ar l y" made, and " t here was a f ai r amount ofl eeway wi t hi n t hose [ f ul l - t i me] posi t i ons. " The di st r i ct cour tt her ef or e consi der ed i t di sput ed t hat open avai l abi l i t y and wor ki ngt wo ni ght shi f t s per week wer e st r i ct r equi r ement s f or f ul l - t i meempl oyees.
-19-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
20/30
Wi t h a vul nerabl e empl oyee known t o Kohl ' s t o bel i eve she
f aced i mmi nent har m i f her shi f t s coul d not be changed, t he
negot i at i ng tact i cs empl oyed by Carr and Barnes caused Manni ng to
f l ee t he one- si ded di scussi ons and announce t hat she had no choi ce
but t o qui t . I t i s t r ue t hat Car r chased af t er Manni ng and spoke
wi t h her i n t he br eak r oom, and t hen cal l ed her agai n t en days
l at er . But i n nei t her conver sat i on di d Car r pr opose al t er nat i ve
accommodat i ons, r equest ot her i nf or mat i on, or ot her wi se i ndi cat e
t hat Kohl ' s had r el ent ed. I n t he br eak r oom, Car r f ai l ed t o
suggest any accommodat i on, i ncl udi ng t he accommodat i on t hat Car r
knew she coul d of f er and that Manni ng' s doctor sai d she most
needed- - no swi ng shi f t s. Dur i ng t he second conver sat i on, by phone
on Apr i l 9, Manni ng asked about her work schedul e af t er Carr asked
her t o consi der ot her accommodat i ons f or f ul l - t i me and par t - t i me
empl oyment ( none of whi ch Car r act ual l y of f er ed, or even sai d she
had aut hor i t y t o of f er ) . 12 Car r r epl i ed t hat she woul d need t o
consul t wi t h t he cor por at e of f i ce about any schedul e
accommodat i ons, i n cont r adi ct i on wi t h t he cor por at e of f i ce' s
ear l i er aut hor i zat i on f or Car r t o avoi d schedul i ng Manni ng f or
swi ng shi f t s. Four t i mes unabl e t o get a speci f i c count er of f er
f r omKohl ' s of any accommodat i on, and t ol d t hat t he person she was
12 Al t hough par t - t i me empl oyment can be a reasonabl e accommodat i on,29 U. S. C. 12111( 9) ( b) , Kohl ' s knew t hat i t was not t he vol ume ofwor k t hat j eopar di zed Manni ng' s heal t h, but i t s er r at i cdi s tr i but i on.
-20-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
21/30
speaki ng t o di dn' t even have any aut hor i t y to of f er one, Manni ng
gave up and moved on.
II. The Interactive Process
My col l eagues poi nt t o not hi ng i n t he f or egoi ng
pr esent at i on of t he evi dence t hat l acks suppor t i n t he r ecor d.
They never t hel ess concl ude t hat Manni ng f or f ei t ed her r i ght s under
t he ADA because she was not mor e resi l i ent i n t he f ace of Kohl ' s
negot i at i ng t act i cs. Thi s concl usi on mi sappr ehends t he nat ur e of
t he i nt er act i ve pr ocess. Whi l e Kohl ' s appr oach ( as descr i bed by
Manni ng) mi ght be wel l - sui t ed i n some hard- edged busi ness or
di pl omat i c negot i at i ons, i t f i t s poor l y wi t h t he t ype of "good
f ai t h, " " i nt er act i ve pr ocess" t hat t he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons
r equi r e her e. 29 C. F. R. 1630. 2( o) ( 3) 13; see Eni ca v. Pr i nci pi ,
544 F. 3d 328, 339 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . The EEOC' s i nt er pr et i ve
gui dance di r ect s empl oyer s t o use a "pr obl em sol vi ng appr oach" t o
i dent i f y r easonabl e accommodat i ons i n consul t at i on wi t h t he
empl oyee. 29 C. F. R. app. 1630. 9. 14 Pur sui t of t hi s pr obl em-
13 29 C. F. R. 1630. 2( o) ( 3) pr ovi des t hat " [ t ] o det er mi ne t heappr opr i ate r easonabl e accommodat i on i t may be necessary f or t hecover ed ent i t y to i ni t i at e an i nf or mal , i nt er act i ve pr ocess wi t ht he i ndi vi dual wi t h a di sabi l i t y i n need of t he accommodat i on. Thi spr ocess shoul d i dent i f y t he pr eci se l i mi t at i ons r esul t i ng f r omt hedi sabi l i t y and pot ent i al r easonabl e accommodat i ons t hat coul d
over come t hose l i mi t at i ons. "
14 The EEOC' s i nt er pr et i ve gui dance on t he ADA pr ovi des, i nr el evant par t , t hat
When an i ndi vi dual wi t h a di sabi l i t y has r equest eda r easonabl e accommodat i on t o ass i st i n the per f ormance
-21-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
22/30
sol vi ng appr oach r equi r es t hat t he empl oyer , once i t becomes aware
of t he di sabi l i t y of an empl oyee, "engage i n a meani ngf ul di al ogue
wi t h t he empl oyee t o f i nd t he best means of accommodat i ng t hat
di sabi l i t y. " Tobi n v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns. Co. , 433 F. 3d 100, 108
( 1st Ci r . 2005) . I nt er act i ve di scussi ons shoul d i nvol ve "a f l exi bl e
gi ve- and- t ake wi t h t he di sabl ed empl oyee so t hat t ogether t hey can
det ermi ne what accommodat i on woul d enabl e t he empl oyee t o cont i nue
worki ng. " EEOC v. Sear s, Roebuck & Co. , 417 F. 3d 789, 805 ( 7t h
Ci r . 2005) . Her e, Kohl ' s di d not gi ve even what i t coul d easi l y
gi ve.
Accept i ng as we must f or summar y j udgment pur poses t he
f or egoi ng pr esent at i on of t he f act s- - al l wel l - suppor t ed by
of a j ob, t he empl oyer , usi ng a pr obl emsol vi ng appr oach,shoul d:
( 1) Anal yze t he par t i cul ar j ob i nvol ved and
det er mi ne i t s pur pose and essent i al f unct i ons;
( 2) Consul t wi t h t he i ndi vi dual wi t h a di sabi l i t y t oascer t ai n t he pr eci se j ob- r el at ed l i mi t at i ons i mposed byt he i ndi vi dual ' s di sabi l i t y and how t hose l i mi t at i onscoul d be overcome wi t h a reasonabl e accommodat i on;
( 3) I n consul t at i on wi t h t he i ndi vi dual t o beaccommodated, i dent i f y potent i al accommodat i ons andassess t he ef f ect i veness each woul d have i n enabl i ng t hei ndi vi dual t o per f or m t he essent i al f uncti ons of t heposi t i on; and
( 4) Consi der t he pr ef er ence of t he i ndi vi dual t o beaccommodated and sel ect and i mpl ement t he accommodat i ont hat i s most appr opr i at e f or bot h the empl oyee and theempl oyer .
29 C. F. R. app. 1630. 9.
-22-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
23/30
compet ent pr oof i n t he r ecor d- - i t seems most unf ai r t o say t hat
Manni ng f or f ei t ed her r i ght s under t he ADA. Manni ng communi cat ed
t o Kohl ' s t he f act t hat she was di sabl ed, she pr ovi ded speci f i c
medi cal evi dence descr i bi ng how t he swi ng shi f t s t hr eat ened her
heal t h, and she pr oposed a speci f i c but f l exi bl e accommodat i on. I n
ot her wor ds, she di d ever ythi ng necessary t o enabl e Kohl ' s t o
determi ne whether any accommodat i on was reasonabl y possi bl e. Cf .
Gr i f f i n v. Uni t ed Par cel Ser v. , I nc. , 661 F. 3d 216, 225 ( 5t h Ci r .
2011) ( empl oyee f ai l ed t o pr ovi de i nf or mat i on t o show t hat hi s
r equest ed accommodat i on was necessary t o manage hi s di abetes) .
I ndeed, Kohl ' s di d det er mi ne that an accommodat i on was possi bl e; i t
si mpl y never of f er ed i t .
The obl i gat i on t o engage i n t he i nter act i ve process i n
good f ai t h ar i ses out of a need t o see to i t t hat an empl oyer
r ecei ves t he i nf or mat i on necessar y t o det er mi ne whet her an
accommodat i on i s needed, and why. See 29 C. F. R. app. 1630. 9.
Kohl ' s had al l t hat i nf or mat i on, and r equi r ed not hi ng mor e
( i ncl udi ng Manni ng' s agr eement ) t o of f er t hat whi ch i t had al r eady
determi ned i t coul d accommodat e. The maj or i t y seems t o concl ude
t hat because Tr ei chl er di d not aut hor i ze Car r t o of f er Manni ng t he
most f avor abl e accommodat i on of "a pr edi ct abl e day shi f t , " Car r ' s
f ai l ur e t o at l east of f er Manni ng "no swi ng shi f t s" i s not evi dence
of l ack of good f ai t h. I n t he maj or i t y' s wor ds, Car r di d not
r ef use " t o ext end a request ed r easonabl e accommodat i on t hat she had
-23-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
24/30
been aut hor i zed t o gi ve" ( emphasi s added) . There are t wo pr obl ems
wi t h t hi s ar gument .
Fi r st , on t hi s r ecor d, a j ur y mi ght wel l concl ude t hat
Kohl ' s act ual l y underst ood t hat t he key thi ng Manni ng needed and
t hat she sought was consi st ency i n t he f or m of no swi ng shi f t s.
Dr . Br odsky' s not e cl ear l y emphasi zed t he pr obl em swi ng shi f t s
posed f or Manni ng' s bl ood sugar cont r ol . I ndeed, Tr ei chl er ' s
r esponse to Car r shows t hat he at l east i nt er pr et ed t he doct or ' s
not e as r equest i ng no swi ng shi f t s: "Cl ear l y we can not [ si c] have
her not work ni ght s. BUT, we can work wi t h her t o avoi d t he ' swi ng
shi f t s' - - A [ si c] cl ose f ol l owed by an open. " And Car r document ed
i n an emai l t hat Manni ng asked her si mpl y, and general l y, "why she
coul dn' t have a mor e day t o day consi st ent schedul e. "
Second, l et ' s assume t hat t he maj or i t y i s cor r ect , i . e. ,
t hat Manni ng' s r equest coul d onl y be i nt er pr et ed as a r equest f or
somet hi ng mor e t han no swi ng shi f t s, and t hat Trei chl er onl y
aut hor i zed Car r t o of f er an end t o swi ng shi f t s. The f act r emai ns,
Car r never of f er ed anythi ng, and ( i f Manni ng i s t o be bel i eved) a
j ury coul d f i nd t hat Car r and Bar nes act i vel y mi sl ed Manni ng i nto
bel i evi ng t hat t hey coul d of f er no accommodat i on t hat was not
consi st ent wi t h t he schedul es of "al l f ul l t i mer s" or avai l abl e t o
ever yone el se. I woul d t hi nk t hat a j ur y coul d f i nd t hat such
t act i cs f el l f ar enough shor t of "good f ai t h" par t i ci pat i on i n an
"i nt er act i ve, " " pr obl em sol vi ng" pr ocess so as t o pl ace on Kohl ' s
-24-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
25/30
some of t he bl ame f or t he br eakdown of t hat pr ocess. I nst ead, t he
maj or i t y r ewar ds Kohl ' s f or wi t hhol di ng even t he accommodat i on i t
coul d make- - and mi sr epr esent i ng i t s avai l abi l i t y- - by decl ar i ng t hat
Kohl ' s wi ns t he whol e case as a mat t er of l aw. Al l t he empl oyer
now need do i s keep i t s l i ps movi ng, not of f er anythi ng, i mpl y t hat
i t cannot of f er what even i t det er mi nes i t cl ear l y can, and hope
t hat t he empl oyee becomes di shear t ened enough t o gi ve up.
The maj or i t y' s l anguage bet r ays a f ai l ure t o f ocus on t he
r ol e of a j ur y i n t hi s case. The maj or i t y obser ves that Kohl ' s
negot i at i ng t act i cs di d not "necessar i l y amount t o bad f ai t h"
( emphasi s added) , so l ong as i t was "ear nest . " I agr ee. Ther ef or e
t he EEOC does not wi n on summar y j udgment . Why Kohl ' s wi ns,
t hough, i s not expl ai ned. To be bl unt , what exact l y di d Kohl ' s say
t hat coul d not be vi ewed as an empt y gest ur e, or worse? Kohl ' s had
t wo chances t o of f er no swi ng shi f t s, i t never of f er ed anyt hi ng,
and the par t y who di d make an of f er and suppl y r equest ed
i nf or mat i on ( Manni ng) l oses as a mat t er of l aw?
I t woul d t her ef or e appear t hat t he maj or i t y r eserves a
hei ght ened j udi ci al scrut i ny f or br eakdowns i n t he i nt er act i ve
process onl y when t he empl oyee may have er r ed. I n J acques v.
Cl ean- Up Gr oup, I nc. , 96 F. 3d 506 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) , t he empl oyer
ent i r el y f ai l ed t o engage i n any i nt er act i ve pr ocess, appar ent l y
unawar e of i t s obl i gat i on t o do so, and cl ai med t o have i nt er pr et ed
t he empl oyee' s r equest f or an accommodat i on as an " i mpl i ci t
-25-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
26/30
r ef usal " to accept a wor k assi gnment . I d. at 515. Our cour t
acknowl edged t hat i t was "pai nf ul l y awar e t hat t he [ empl oyer ' s]
f ai l ur e t o engage i n an i nf or mal i nt er act i ve pr ocess wi t h [ t he
empl oyee] r egardi ng accommodat i on opt i ons beyond t hose whi ch he
r equest ed r esul t s f r om i t s f ai l ur e t o be pr oper l y i nf or med of i t s
obl i gat i ons under t he ADA. " I d. We nonet hel ess sust ai ned a j ur y
ver di ct f or t he empl oyer , not i ng t hat "cases i nvol vi ng r easonabl e
accommodat i on t ur n heavi l y upon t hei r f act s and an appr ai sal of t he
r easonabl eness of t he par t i es' behavi or . " I d. Somehow, t hen, a
r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat t he obl i vi ous empl oyer i n J acques
di d not f or f ei t i t s r i ght s, but , accor di ng t o t he maj or i t y i n t hi s
case, no reasonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat Manni ng pr eserved her s.
And t hi s i s appar ent l y so even t hough Kohl ' s, l i ke t he empl oyee i n
J acques, "was j ust as wel l si t uat ed, i f not bet t er so, t o
i nvest i gat e and suggest ot her al t er nat i ves. " I d. at 514.
Cert ai nl y no pr ecedent compel s t he hard- edged vi ew
adopt ed by the maj or i t y as a pr onouncement wi t h whi ch no j ur y coul d
r easonabl y di sagr ee. I n exoner at i ng t he empl oyer i n Tobi n, our
cour t st at ed t hat " [ t ] hi s i s not an i nst ance wher e t he empl oyer
. . . si mpl y rej ect ed any request f or accommodat i on wi t hout f ur t her
di scussi on. " Tobi n, 433 F. 3d at 109. Unl i ke t he "gr eat deal of
di scussi on" and "si gni f i cant act i on on t he par t of company
of f i ci al s" i n Tobi n, i d. , a j ur y coul d f i nd i n t hi s case t hat
-26-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
27/30
Kohl ' s di scussed onl y i n f or m, not subst ance, and di d not act at
al l .
I nst ead, Kohl ' s appr oach i s cl oser t o t hat of t he
empl oyer i n Col wel l v. Ri t e Ai d, 602 F. 3d 495 ( 3d Ci r . 2010) .
Ther e, t he empl oyer ' s manager r ej ect ed t he r equest s of a par t i al l y
bl i nd empl oyee, who coul d not dr i ve at ni ght , t o be schedul ed f or
dayt i me shi f t s onl y. I d. at 498- 99. The Thi r d Ci r cui t concl uded
t hat t he manager ' s subsequent agr eement t o a meet i ng wi t h an
empl oyee, wi t hout mor e, woul d not compel a j ur y t o f i nd that t he
empl oyer was wi l l i ng t o negot i at e i n good f ai t h af t er t he manager
"had f l at l y r ef used al l of [ t he empl oyee' s] over t ur es, " and t he
empl oyer "d[ i d] not asser t t hat [ t he manager ] was wi l l i ng t o of f er
any accommodat i ons, " even t hough t he empl oyee qui t bef or e t he
meet i ng. I d. at 507- 08; see al so Sear s, Roebuck & Co, 417 F. 3d at
806 ( "The l ast act i n t he i nt er act i ve pr ocess i s not al ways t he
cause of a br eakdown . . . and cour t s must exami ne t he pr ocess as
a whol e . . . . " ) .
The maj or i t y quot es Eni ca and Phel ps f or t he pr oposi t i on
t hat " t he pr ocess r equi r es open communi cat i on by bot h par t i es, and
an empl oyer wi l l not be hel d l i abl e i f i t makes ' r easonabl e ef f or t s
bot h t o communi cat e wi t h t he empl oyee and pr ovi de accommodat i ons
based on t he i nf or mat i on i t possessed. ' " Eni ca, 544 F. 3d at 339
( quot i ng Phel ps v. Opt i ma Heal t h, I nc. , 251 F. 3d 21, 28 ( 1st Ci r .
2001) ) . A j ur y coul d cer t ai nl y f i nd t hat Kohl ' s di d not make
-27-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
28/30
r easonabl e ef f or t s t o pr ovi de accommodat i ons based on t he
i nf or mat i on i t possessed. I ndeed, i t di d not even make a
r easonabl e ef f or t t o pr ovi de t he accommodat i on i t knew i t coul d
pr ovi de. By cont r ast , i n Phel ps t he empl oyer act ual l y of f er ed
sever al pot ent i al al t er nat i ve accommodat i ons, and t he empl oyee
conceded t hat she r ef used t o par t i ci pat e i n t he i nt er act i ve
pr ocess. Phel ps, 251 F. 3d at 27- 28. Li kewi se, i n Eni ca t he
empl oyer di d of f er and agr ee t o several accommodat i ons dur i ng
mont hs of back- and- f ort h wi t h t he empl oyee. Eni ca, 544 F. 3d at
340- 42. Kohl ' s, however , of f er ed not hi ng.
III. The Constructive Discharge
Because a reasonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat Manni ng
r easonabl y bel i eved t hat no accommodat i on was f or t hcomi ng or
possi bl e, and t hat f ur t her work wi t hout an accommodat i on posed a
ser i ous heal t h r i sk, a j ur y t hat f ound Kohl ' s coul d have r easonabl y
accommodat ed Manni ng' s needs coul d al so concl ude that Kohl ' s
const r uct i vel y di schar ged Manni ng by not doi ng so. The l ack of an
accommodat i on made Manni ng' s worki ng condi t i ons " so di f f i cul t or
unpl easant t hat a reasonabl e per son i n [ her ] shoes woul d have f el t
compel l ed t o r esi gn, " r esul t i ng i n const r uct i ve di schar ge. De La
Vega v. San J uan St ar , I nc. , 377 F. 3d 111, 117 ( 1st Ci r . 2004)
( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . Manni ng' s
doct or ' s not e i s cl ear t hat t he er r at i c wor k schedul e " i nduce[ d]
addi t i onal st r ess and mor e sugar f l uct uat i on" and t hat Manni ng' s
-28-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
29/30
"di abet es cont r ol ha[ d] r ecent l y det er i or at ed and exhi bi t [ ed] a
cl ear st r ess pat t er n. " That det er i or at i on r ai sed t he pr ospect of
ket oaci dosi s or a coma. Kohl ' s unwi l l i ngness t o gi ve Manni ng a
pr edi ct abl e schedul e subj ect ed Manni ng t o wor ki ng condi t i ons t hat
t hr eat ened her heal t h. Sur el y a j ur y coul d f i nd such a t hr eat
suf f i ci ent l y daunt i ng as t o compel Manni ng t o def end her sel f by
r ef usi ng t o wor k wi t hout t he r equi r ed pr ot ect i on.
Al t hough t here may be cases i n whi ch an empl oyer f ai l s t o
accommodat e but does not const r uct i vel y di scharge an empl oyee, as
when worki ng wi t hout an accommodat i on does not j eopar di ze t he
empl oyee' s heal t h, here Manni ng' s work schedul e put her i n harm' s
way. The "choi ce" between worki ng a schedul e t hat exacer bates a
ser i ous medi cal condi t i on and r esi gni ng i s not r eal l y a choi ce at
al l , and cer t ai nl y not one t hat empl oyees shoul d have t o make. See
Tor r ech- Her nndez v. Gen. El ec. Co. , 519 F. 3d 41, 50 ( 1st Ci r .
2008) ( "[ I ] n or der f or a r esi gnat i on t o const i t ut e a const r uct i ve
di schar ge, i t ef f ect i vel y must be voi d of choi ce or f r ee wi l l . ") .
IV. Conclusion
As best as I can t el l , t hi s i s t he f i r st t i me t hat any
ci r cui t cour t has hel d t hat an empl oyer can rej ect an accommodat i on
r equest backed up by a doct or ' s not e, r ef use t o of f er an
accommodat i on t hat i t has det er mi ned i t can make, f al sel y cl ai m
t hat any accommodat i on must be of f ered t o al l workers whether
di sabl ed or not , and t hen decl are the empl oyee' s ADA r i ght s
-29-
-
7/26/2019 EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)
30/30
f or f ei t ed when she gi ves up. Such a hol di ng demands t oo much
r esi l i ence and per si st ence on t he par t of a di sabl ed and st r essed-
out empl oyee, and t akes away f r om j ur or s a t ask t hey ar e wel l -
sui t ed t o per f or m. I r espect f ul l y di ssent .
-30-