Lucretia Thomas v. Cobb County School District

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-11325
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LUCRETIA THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-00604-SCJ
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-11325 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-11325
Before WILSON, ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lucretia Thomas appeals the district court’s grant of sum-
mary judgment to her former employer, Cobb County School Dis-
trict, on her claim of disability discrimination under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). She contended
in the district court that the School District violated the ADA by
terminating her from her Food Service Assistant position after she
requested an accommodation due to her medical restriction that
she could not lift more than ten pounds. On appeal, she argues that
the district court erred in finding that her requested accommoda-
tion was not reasonable and that she was not a qualified individual
under the ADA. After reviewing the record and reading the parties’
briefs, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judg-
ment to the School District.
I.
“We review
de novo a grant of summary judgment on ADA
claims, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party.”
Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247,
1255 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151,
1154 (11th Cir. 2012).
USCA11 Case: 21-11325 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

21-11325 Opinion of the Court 3
We apply the burden-shifting analysis of Title VII employ-
ment discrimination claims to ADA claims.
Holly, 492 F.3d at 1255.
Under the anti-discrimination provision in the ADA, an employer
may not “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of
disability in regard to [the] . . . discharge of employees [or] . . . other
terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12112(a).
To establish a
prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff
must show that, at the time of the adverse employment action, she
“(1) had a disability, (2) was a qualified individual, and (3) was sub-
jected to unlawful discrimination because of her disability.”
Batson
v. Salvation Army, 897 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2018). A qualified
individual is one who, “with or without reasonable accommoda-
tion, can perform the essential functions of the employment posi-
tion that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8);
Lewis v. City of Union City, 934 F.3d 1169, 1182 (11th Cir. 2019).
“Accordingly, an ADA plaintiff must show either that [she] can per-
form the essential functions of [her] job without accommodation,
or, failing that, show that [she] can perform the essential functions
of [her] job with a reasonable accommodation.”
D’Angelo v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1229 (11th Cir. 2005) (quota-
tion marks omitted).
Discrimination under the ADA includes the failure to make
a reasonable accommodation to a known physical limitation of an
individual. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). An employer’s failure to
reasonably accommodate a disabled individual is itself
USCA11 Case: 21-11325 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-11325
discrimination, and the plaintiff does not bear the additional bur-
den of having to show that the employer acted in a discriminatory
manner toward its disabled employees.
Holly, 492 F.3d at 1262.
An accommodation is reasonable “only if it enables the em-
ployee to perform the essential functions of the job.”
Holly, 492
F.3d at 1256. If an individual is unable to perform an essential func-
tion of her job even with accommodation, however, she is not a
qualified individual,
i.e., the ADA does not require the employer to
eliminate an essential function of the individual’s job.
Id.
The burden of identifying such an accommodation, and the
“ultimate burden of persuasion with respect to demonstrating that
such an accommodation is reasonable,” rests with the individual
plaintiff.
Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117
F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 1997). However, an employer is not ob-
ligated to “bump” another employee from a position to accommo-
date a disabled employee.
Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d
1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001). Nor is an employer required to create
a new position for an employee.
Boyle v. City of Pell City, 866 F.3d
1280, 1289 (11th Cir. 2017);
Sutton v. Lader, 185 F.3d 1203, 1210–
11 (11th Cir. 1999) (an employer is under no obligation to create a
light-duty position for a disabled employee).
II.
Here, the record shows that Thomas fails to identify a rea-
sonable accommodation and thus could not show that she was a
qualified individual to support her
prima facie claim of
USCA11 Case: 21-11325 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

21-11325 Opinion of the Court 5
discrimination under the ADA. The evidence in the record indi-
cates that Thomas was unable to lift more than ten pounds, and
the ability to do so was an essential function of her Food Service
Position. Moreover, the record shows that her requested accom-
modation was to either have her coworkers perform lifting for her
or to place her in a position that did not require lifting. These re-
quests, however, did not allow her to perform the essential func-
tion of her position, and the School District was not required to
reallocate or eliminate the function of lifting from her position or
place her in a new position.
See,
e.g.,
Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1256;
Boyle, 866 F.3d at 1289; Sutton, 185 F.3d at 1211. Because Thomas
cannot support her claim of discrimination, we conclude that the
district court properly granted summary judgment to the School
District.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-11325 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --