The case of Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts involved a plaintiff claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proceedings ultimately didn’t go well for the employer. But, just as significant, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit made important points about whether the trial court had properly applied the summary judgment standard.

Requesting a transfer

The plaintiff was hired as an office assistant by the elected clerk of court. She was eventually promoted to deputy clerk, where she was assigned to customer service. But the public contact was difficult for her because she suffered from an anxiety disorder. Nonetheless, the plaintiff was never written up or disciplined for performance issues.

There were thirty deputy clerks; about five provided customer service while the others performed record keeping. The plaintiff requested a transfer out of the customer service from her supervisor. The supervisor relayed the request to the elected clerk of court who took handwritten notes for the file that included phrases such as “anxiety disorder” and “might have to go back to [the doctor].”

The plaintiff sent an email to her supervisor and two other managers, again requesting a transfer and disclosing her disability. She forwarded the email to the elected clerk of court after she was told by one of the other managers that the elected clerk of court had the power to make a decision but was away on vacation.

The elected clerk of court alleged that she hadn’t checked her email during vacation but had received a call from her assistant that the plaintiff was sleeping at her desk. When she returned, the elected clerk of court called the plaintiff into her office for a meeting and terminated her, stating that the plaintiff wasn’t “getting it” and there were no available positions to which she could transfer.

Filing a complaint

The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that her employer had:

• Failed to reasonably accommodate her under the ADA,
• Terminated her because of her social anxiety, and
• Retaliated against her because she’d requested an accommodation.

The trial court granted summary judgment in the employer’s favor. It held that the plaintiff wasn’t disabled under the law. Furthermore, the trial court found that the person who’d made the termination decision — the elected clerk of court — wasn’t informed of the plaintiff’s accommodation request before terminating her. So she couldn’t have retaliated against her. The plaintiff appealed.

Precluding summary judgment

On that appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for trial. The appeals court held that the trial court had:

• Misapplied the summary judgment standard of analyzing facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant (that is, the party that didn’t file a motion),
• Impermissibly credited the employer’s evidence, and
• Failed to acknowledge the employee’s evidence.

With regard to her disability discrimination claim, the trial court had failed to provide deference to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation identifying “interacting with others” as a major life activity. The appeals court held that the plaintiff needed to show only that she endured interactions with the public with intense anxiety. Additionally, the elected clerk of court’s note to the file, inconsistent testimonies and a lack of documentary evidence of the plaintiff’s alleged poor performance precluded summary judgment.

The appeals court also addressed the retaliation claim. It held that the plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact about causation because she was terminated just three weeks after asking for an accommodation.

In addition, the appeals court found that there were genuine issues of material fact about whether the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the deputy clerk position with an accommodation. The court held that there was no evidence that customer service was an essential part of the job or that a transfer of the plaintiff would negatively affect her employer.

Last, the court found that, by firing the plaintiff at a meeting rather than discussing accommodations, the employer may have failed to engage in an interactive process with the plaintiff as required by the ADA.

Remaining cognizant

This case sheds important light on the standard for summary judgment. It also demonstrates that nonphysical ailments, such as social anxiety disorders, can be considered disabilities under the ADA. Be sure to remain cognizant of all aspects of the law, engage in an interactive process with employees who request accommodations and abide by your obligation to provide reasonable ones. 

To view all news stories, click here.