Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page: 1 of 9
ANTHONY MCCARROLL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOMERBY OF MOBILE, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(December 12, 2014)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-11040
Page: 2 of 9
Anthony McCarroll, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district courts
grant of summary judgment in favor of Somerby of Mobile, LLC (Somerby), in
his employment-discrimination suit based on the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112(a), and the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2615(a).
sufficient evidence before the district court to preclude summary judgment. After
careful review, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
McCarroll was employed as a part-time bus driver for Somerby, a seniorliving community in Mobile, Alabama. He was terminated from that employment
on December 12, 2011, after he missed work twice without giving proper notice
that he would be absent.
Case: 14-11040
Page: 3 of 9
because he was unwilling to work full time. The district court granted summary
judgment to Somerby on all claims.
II.
We review de novo the district courts grant of summary judgment, viewing
all evidence and factual inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 498
F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant
1
While McCarroll did not allege a specific disability in his complaint, he states in his
initial brief on appeal that he suffers from a mental health disability, and record evidence
indicates that he has received treatment for depression- and anxiety-related disorders. He also
states that his back problem was a persistent disability.
3
Case: 14-11040
Page: 4 of 9
shows that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that he is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We liberally construe briefs
filed by pro se litigants. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
III.
McCarroll contends that Somerby failed to accommodate his disability by
adjusting its attendance policy and excusing his absence on December 10, 2011,
based on the doctors note that he provided on December 12, 2011. He also asserts
that the district court erred in requiring him to prove more than that he could not
comply with Somerbys attendance policy because of his disability.
The ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating against a qualified
individual on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. 12112(a). To establish a prima
face case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he was (1)
disabled; (2) qualified; and (3) discriminated against because of his disability. 2
Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001); Earl v.
Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2000).
An employer unlawfully discriminates against a qualified individual with a
disability when the employer fails to provide reasonable accommodations for the
disabilityunless doing so would impose undue hardship on the employer.
Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1255; see 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(5)(A). An accommodation is
2
Case: 14-11040
Page: 5 of 9
reasonable only if it would allow the employee to perform the essential functions
of the job. Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1255. But the duty to provide a reasonable
accommodation is not triggered unless a specific demand for an accommodation
has been made. Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens & Homes, Inc., 167 F.3d 1361,
1363 (11th Cir. 1999); Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282, 285 (11th Cir. 1997)
([T]he ADA provides no cause of action for failure to investigate possible
accommodations.)
The district court properly granted summary judgment on McCarrolls
failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA. McCarroll did not establish any
facts to show that he made a specific demand for an accommodation before his
supervisors decided to fire him.
Case: 14-11040
Page: 6 of 9
terminate McCarrolls employment. See Gaston, 167 F.3d at 1364; Willis, 108
F.3d at 285.
In addition, McCarroll presented no evidence to show that his disabilities
prevented him from following Somerbys absence-reporting policy, nor does he
explain how the accommodations of a temporary leave of absence or a more
lenient attendance policy would have allowed him to perform the jobs essential
functions. See Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1255-56 (stating that the plaintiff bears the
burden of identifying an accommodation and demonstrating its reasonableness).
Consequently, Somerby was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
McCarrolls failure-to-accommodate claim.
IV.
McCarroll contends that he stated claims under the FMLA because he was
denied the right to take medical leave as recommended in the doctors note, and
because the doctors note, presented the next business day after his absence, shows
that his request for FMLA leave and his termination were causally related.
The FMLA provides that an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of
12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period . . . [b]ecause of a serious
health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the
position of such employee.
29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D).
To protect the
availability of these rights, the FMLA prohibits employers from interfering with,
6
Case: 14-11040
Page: 7 of 9
Case: 14-11040
Page: 8 of 9
Case: 14-11040
Page: 9 of 9
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to
Somerby on McCarrolls FMLA claims.
V.
Because the district court properly granted summary judgment to Somerby
on McCarrolls claims under the ADA and FMLA, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.