Michael Galloway v. Alethia House

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15236
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-00936-JHH
MICHAEL GALLOWAY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALETHEIA HOUSE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(February 15, 2013)
Before HULL, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-15236 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

Michael Galloway, a legally blind person, appeals from the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Aletheia House Inc. in his action under
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). On
appeal, Galloway argues the district erred in concluding he presented no direct
evidence of discrimination and that, alternatively, he established a circumstantial
case of discrimination by showing he could perform the essential functions of the
job. He also asserts the district court erred in concluding he failed to show a
reasonable accommodation existed. After review, we affirm the district court.1
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, drawing
all inferences and reviewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005).
Summary judgment should be entered against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element of its case, and on
which it bears the burden of proof at trial. Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93
F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996).
To establish an ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show, inter alia,
that he was a “qualified individual.” See Collado v. United Parcel Serv., Co., 419
We may affirm a district court’s judgment based on any ground that finds support in the1
record. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001).
2
Case: 11-15236 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

F.3d 1143, 1152 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005). A “qualified individual” is an individual
who “can perform the essential functions” of the desired employment position
“with or without reasonable accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Essential
functions “‘are the fundamental job duties of a position that an individual with a
disability is actually required to perform,’” Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492
F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2007), and “consideration shall be given to the
employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential,” Davis v. Fla.
Power & Light Co., 205 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2000). An accommodation
qualifies as “reasonable” only “if it enables the employee to perform the essential
functions of the job.” Holly, 492 F.3d at 1256.
Assuming arguendo that Galloway presented direct evidence of
discrimination, he nonetheless failed to present evidence to establish an essential
element of his case: that he was a qualified individual under the ADA. See
Collado, 419 F.3d at 1152 n.5; Mize, 93 F.3d at 742. Specifically, the district
court correctly concluded Galloway was not a qualified individual because he
could not perform one of the job’s essential functions, driving, with or without
reasonable accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). The evidence below,
including Aletheia House’s written job description and the testimony of its chief
operating officer, established that driving was an essential function of the position
3
Case: 11-15236 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

for which Galloway applied. Galloway created no genuine issue of material fact
as to whether driving was an essential function, stating simply that he was not
applying to a transportation position. Galloway’s response does not address the
need to drive as part of the case manager position, and is thus insufficient to create
an issue of fact. Moreover, Galloway failed to establish any of his proposed
accommodations were reasonable, as none of them would enable him to perform
the essential function of driving. Holly, 492 F.3d at 1256. Accordingly, we2
affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Aletheia
House.
AFFIRMED.
Galloway failed to offer any substantive argument regarding the “reassignment”2
accommodation in his initial brief and has therefore abandoned the issue. See Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
4
Case: 11-15236 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --