Scruggs v. Pulaski County, No. 15-1248 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, employed as a juvenile detention officer, filed suit against the County, alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 12 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged that the County retaliated against her in violation of the ADA, Section 504, Arkansas law , and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The County terminated plaintiff's employment because she could not meet the job requirement of lifting 40 pounds. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims of discrimination under the ADA and Section 504 because plaintiff was not a qualified individual where she could not perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation. Even if the court were to find that extending plaintiff's FMLA leave was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that she could perform the essential functions of her job with that accommodation. Likewise, the court agreed with the district court that the County was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination claim. The court further held that plaintiff failed to present a submissible case of retaliation under the ADA where plaintiff's request for additional time to obtain a new FMLA certification was not a reasonable accommodation, and therefore it was not protected activity. And because plaintiff still was unable to perform an essential function of her job at the end of her FMLA leave period, the County did not violate FMLA by terminating her after her FMLA expired. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. With respect to plaintiff's ADA and Section 504 discrimination claims, the district court did not err in determining she was not a qualified individual because she could not meet one of the requirements of her position - the ability to lift or carry 40 pounds; the evidence supported the defendant's requirement as the job of juvenile officer requires the officer to lift or restrain juveniles who weigh more than 40 pounds; plaintiff failed to show that a reasonable accommodation was available or that the employer was obligated, in the absence of a reasonable accommodation, to engage in an interactive process; plaintiff's request for additional time to obtain a new FMLA certification was not a reasonable accommodation and was not a protected activity for the purposes of plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim; because plaintiff could not perform an essential function of her job, the defendant did not violate the FMLA by placing her on consecutive rather than intermittent leave or by terminating her when her FMLA leave expired.
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.