A law firm did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating an assistant who could no longer perform heavy lifting, a federal appeals court ruled.
Heavy lifting was an essential function of the employee’s job and her inability to do so could not reasonably be accommodated, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained, upholding the district court’s summary judgment in EEOC v. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, 2015 WL 3916760 (4th Cir., June 26, 2015).
Facts of the Case
Charlesetta Jennings worked at Womble Carlyle as a “support services assistant,” which entailed a variety of duties including some that involved heavy lifting. She worked primarily in the copy room but performed other tasks as well.
Jennings was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008. Her treatment resulted in lymphedema, which made it difficult for her to lift heavy items without injury. For about seven months she “devised alternate methods for accomplishing those tasks” but then, in June 2010, she “suffered an injury at work due to unavoidable heavy lifting,” according to the court’s opinion.
When Jennings returned to work after the injury, she submitted a doctor’s note that she could not lift more than 10 pounds. Based on this restriction, Womble Carlyle management determined that she was now unable to perform the majority (all but four) of the SSA functions. The firm accommodated the restriction for about six months by assigning her light-duty work, but her supervisors testified that her limitations often kept her idle.
In February 2011, Jennings provided an updated doctor’s note allowing her to lift up to 20 pounds, but this restriction was permanent. Womble Carlyle reassessed her capabilities, but decided the scope of her possible duties remained just as limited. Finding no available positions to which she could be transferred, the firm placed her on medical leave, and terminated her when that expired.
Procedural History
Jennings filed ADA charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the EEOC sued Womble Carlyle as a result.
However, the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, N.C., granted the firm summary judgment “on the ground that, at the time she was fired, Jennings could not perform the essential functions (see The ADA Compliance Guide, ¶213) of her job with or without reasonable accommodation, and no reasonable jury could find otherwise.” The district court determined both that lifting more 20 pounds was an essential function of the job, and that Jennings could not do so even with reasonable accommodation.
Appeals Court Opinion
On appeal, the EEOC argued that Jennings could perform the job functions and, even if not, having other SSAs help her with the heavy lifting would have been a reasonable accommodation.
However, the 4th Circuit ruled that because many SSA tasks “could at any time require lifting over 20 pounds, the ability to lift that amount is an essential function of the job.” In determining a job’s essential functions, “we look to the general components of the job rather than to the employee’s particular experience,” according to the three-judge panel. “Even though Jennings worked primarily in the copy room, she could have, at any time, been called upon to move heavy furniture or carry heavy packages.”
Therefore, the 4th Circuit found Jennings unable to perform an essential function of the job. The EEOC argued that her work-around methods enabled her to perform enough job functions to render heavy lifting nonessential, but the court replied that while she thus managed “to perform a small subset of the job’s responsibilities, the ability to lift over 20 pounds was inextricably tied to the vast majority of them.”
Because Jennings could not perform an essential job function, the EEOC would have to show that a reasonable accommodation would have enabled her to do so, and the 4th Circuit agreed with the lower court that the commission had not.
“Excusing Jennings from all heavy lifting would not have been a reasonable accommodation, and the EEOC does not argue to the contrary,” according to the court. “Moreover, requiring assistance for all tasks that involve lifting more than 20 pounds would reallocate essential functions, which the ADA does not require.”
Therefore, while “not unsympathetic to Jennings’s situation,” the court concluded “she is unable to perform an essential function of the SSA job without a serious risk of further injury,” and affirmed the district court’s judgment.