Sheri Grell Plaintiff v. Department of Energy; Secretary Dan Brouillette

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-2270
___________________________

Sheri Grell
Plaintiff Appellant
v.
Department of Energy; Secretary Dan Brouillette
Defendants Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: January 29, 2020
Filed: February 4, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Sheri Grell appeals the district court’s
1
adverse grant of summary judgment and
denial of her cross-motion for summary judgment on her claim that her former
1
The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

employer, the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”), failed to accommodate
her disabilities, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 701 to 794g.
Upon careful de novo review, we conclude summary judgment was proper
because the uncontroverted facts established the DOE accommodated Grell’s
disabilities, to the extent she requested specific accommodations and those requests
were reasonable. See Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas City, 214 F.3d
1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2000) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment); see also
Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E.R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 712 (8th Cir. 2003) (describing
elements of prima facie case for failure-to-accommodate claim under Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”)); Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 911-12 (8th Cir. 1998)
(stating cases interpreting ADA and RA are “interchangeable”); cf. Schaffhauser v.
United Parcel Serv., Inc., 794 F.3d 899, 905 (8th Cir. 2015) (An employee “must
establish both a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability and a failure
to accommodate it.”). We further conclude the uncontroverted facts showed the DOE
engaged in an interactive process in an attempt to ascertain Grell’s needs and identify
reasonable accommodations. See Schaffhauser, 794 F.3d at 906 (stating the
employee has the burden to alert, and initiate an interactive process with, the
employer to determine whether, and, if so, what accommodation is necessary based
on the relevant details of the disability).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-