Michael Galloway v. Alethia House, No. 11-15236 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-15236 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 11-15236 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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: 2 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 1 We may affirm a district court s judgment based on any ground that finds support in the 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: 3 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: 4 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 1256.2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order granting summary judgment in favor of Aletheia House. AFFIRMED. 2 Galloway failed to offer any substantive argument regarding the reassignment accommodation in his initial brief and has therefore abandoned the issue. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). 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.
