Alonzo-Miranda v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.
, Slip Copy (2015)
2015 WL 13768973
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D.
Texas, San Antonio Division.
Juan ALONZO-MIRANDA Plaintiff,
v.
SCHLUMBERGER
TECHNOLOGY CORP., Defendant.
Civ. Action No. 5:13-cv-1057
| First, Schlumberger argues that the jury “could not have
Signed 06/11/2015
Attorneys and Law Firms
Oscar H. Villarreal, Oscar H. Villarreal-Attorney at Law,
San Antonio, TX, John Griffin, Jr., Marek, Griffin &
Knaupp, Victoria, TX, for Plaintiff.
Julie C. Tower, Jackson Lewis P.C., Austin, TX, Talley
R. Parker, William L. Davis, Jackson Lewis P.C., Dallas,
TX, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court Judge
*1 Before the Court is defendant Schlumberger
Technology Corporation's renewed motion for judgment
as a matter of law, or alternatively, a motion for a new
trial. ECF No. 162.
The issue presented in this case was whether Schlumberger
reasonably accommodated Alonzo-Miranda's Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff Juan
Alonzo-Miranda's claim was tried before an eight-person
jury from Monday, March 16, 2015 to Thursday, March
19, 2015. On Monday, March 23, 2015, the jury returned
a verdict for Alonzo-Miranda, finding that Schlumberger
failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for
Alonzo-Miranda's disability. The jury awarded Alonzo-
Miranda $5,386.50 in lost overtime wages and $23,205.00
in compensatory damages.
In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law,
the Court must review all the evidence in the record and
© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
draw inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, just
as when entertaining a motion for summary judgment.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
150-51 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). The Court may not
make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, as
those are jury functions. Id. The Court “must disregard all
evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not
required to believe.” Id.
Schlumberger advances several arguments in favor of a
judgment as a matter of law.
answered ‘yes’ to the question of whether defendant
failed to provide a reasonable accommodation because
defendant granted all three accommodations requested
by plaintiff, two of them quickly—parking in handicap
parking and working days only, and one several months
later later—bringing the dog to work.” Def.'s Renewed
Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law, or Alternatively, Mot. for
New Trial (“Def.'s Mot.”) at 3. However, an employer's
delay in providing a reasonable accommodation can
amount to a failure to make reasonable accommodations
(i.e., a “constructive denial”). See Selenke v. Med.
Imaging of Colo., 248 F.3d 1249, 1262 (10th Cir. 2001)
(collecting cases); cf. Groome Res. Ltd., L.L.C. v. Parish of
Jefferson, 234 F.3d 192, 199-200 (5th Cir. 2000) (“While
never formally denying the request, the [defendant's]
unjustified and indetenninate delay had the same effect
of undermining the anti-discriminatory purpose of the
FHAA”).
At any rate, Alonzo-Miranda presented evidence
suggesting that just days after allowing the dog on the
premises, Schlumberger restricted the accommodation.
Alonzo-Miranda sought a jury verdict not just on
Schlumberger's failure to allow the dog until several
months after the request, but also for the restrictions
placed on the dog once it was allowed, such as barring the
dog from being in break rooms or using the front door.
Regardless of how Schlumberger characterizes the case,
the evidence at trial supported a verdict for Alonzo-
Miranda on the grounds of both denial and delay.
Schlumberger's motion inappropriately ignores evidence
in support of the verdict, instead focusing on evidence it
considers favorable.
1
Alonzo-Miranda v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Slip Copy (2015)

*2 Schlumberger argues that “[w]ith respect to Plaintiff's Jury Charges, which cite Feist, without objection from
Schlumberger. The court in Feist v. La., Dep't of Justice,
request to bring the dog to work, the testimony was
Office of the Atty. Gen., 730 F.3d 450, 453 (5th Cir. 2013),
undisputed that the need was not obvious” and points to
held that an accommodation may enable the employee
various people who did not recommend a service dog to
to “enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment”
Alonzo-Miranda, arguing that he was “doctor shopping.”
even if it has no effect on the employee's ability to do the
However, Alonzo-Miranda presented evidence at trial
job. Substantial evidence at trial established that a service
that he submitted several forms to Schlumberger
dog mitigated the effects of Alonzo-Miranda's PTSD by
supporting the accommodation. The doctor shopping
reducing the pain and hardship of his disability while at
issue was squarely presented to the jury, and the jury was
work.
entitled to reject that argument and find that the need was
obvious to Schlumberger.
Finally, Schlumberger argues that because this is actually
a delay of accommodation case, Alonzo-Miranda's doctor
Schlumberger also argues that Alonzo-Miranda “did not
shopping and failure to disclose all of his medical
offer any evidence establishing a need for the dog to
records to Schlumberger caused a breakdown in the
perform the essential functions of his mechanic job.” Id. at
“interactive process.” Def.'s Mot. 7-9. However, evidence
3-4. However, the jury's verdict is supported by evidence
at trial suggested that the delay could have been due to
showing the accommodation would help Alonzo-Miranda
Schlumberger's actions, and the jury was entitled to so
avoid and mitigate the flashbacks and panic attacks that
find.
sometimes prevented him from performing any of the
essential functions of his job. See 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(j)(1)
For these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES defendant's
(vii) (“An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and
disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity
motion for a new trial.
when active.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of June, 2015.

Even if that were not the case, Schlumberger misstates
Fifth Circuit precedent in claiming that the ADA requires
accommodations only when they are necessary to perform All Citations
essential functions of the job. At trial, the Court
instructed the jury based upon the Fifth Circuit Pattern Slip Copy, 2015 WL 13768973

End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2