EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

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


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-


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-


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 noswi ngshi 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-


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-


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-


7/30

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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-

Documents

EEOC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)