Lillian McFarland-Peebles v. Commonwealth of Virginia Depar, No. 08-2008 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2008 LILLIAN L. MCFARLAND-PEEBLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00081-LMB-JFA) Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lillian L. McFarland-Peebles, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Clayton Fleming, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lillian L. McFarland-Peebles ( McFarland ) appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles ( DMV ) on McFarland s civil action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( ADA ), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 2005 & Supp. 2009). district court did not err in granting summary Because the judgment, we affirm. We review de novo a district court s order granting summary judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 165, 167 (4th Cir. 2009). Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. Co., 556 F.3d Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 56(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The ADA prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of that individual. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a). the of initial burden establishing a The plaintiff has prima facie discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. case of Ennis v. Nat l Ass n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55, 58 (4th 2 Cir. 1995). To establish a prima facie case, McFarland must demonstrate that: (1) she has a disability; (2) she is a qualified individual for the job in question; and (3) she was discharged because of her disability. E.E.O.C. v. Stowe-Pharr Mills, Inc., 216 F.3d 373, 377 (4th Cir. 2000). individual is one who, with or A qualified without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of her job. Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C.A. § 12111(8)). When determined granting that summary McFarland judgment, failed to the district demonstrate perform the essential functions of her job. she court could Though McFarland now contends that she could have performed her job had she been placed in another position, earlier sworn statements. this assertion contradicts her In a span of less than four years, McFarland suffered a dozen epileptic seizures, during which she would experience sharp pain radiating from the front to the back of her head, followed by periods shaking lasting 5 to 20 minutes. initially controlled with of uncontrollable Though her seizures were medication, the efficacy of this treatment significantly lessened as time passed, until McFarland was experiencing severe seizures on a semiweekly basis despite large doses significantly of medication. interfere with, Such if not frequent negate, perform the essential functions of her job. 3 seizures her would ability to While McFarland contends that she could have been reassigned to a position that did not focus so heavily on stressful customer service, and would therefore be less likely to cause a seizure, her seizures occurred both at home and at work. Because these frequent seizures would prevent McFarland from performing the essential functions of any office position, the district court did not err in determining that McFarland failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
