United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MATTHEW W. BRANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Leslie Conklin brings this case against her employer,
Hawbaker Engineering, LLC, and her employer's parent
company, Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. She alleges that Defendants
failed to accommodate her disability and retaliated against
her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act
(ADAAA), and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (PHRA). On
September 3, 2019, Defendants moved for summary judgment on
all counts.
I.
BACKGROUND [1]
In
business, as in life, it is important to draw boundaries.
Cases like today's arise in the gray areas where we fail
to do so.
Glenn
O. Hawbaker, Inc, and Hawbaker Engineering, LLC, are legally
distinct entities; the former is the sole parent of the
latter.[2] Despite the nominal separation, the two
companies overlap heavily in the real world. They operate out
of the same building, and some of their administrative
functions, such as human resources, are run coextensively by
one shared department.[3] At times, staff from one company will
assist with completing the tasks of the other.[4]
One
such employee is Leslie Conklin, the plaintiff. Conklin was
hired by Glenn O. Hawbaker to work in their billing
department in December 2005.[5] Five years later, Conklin
transferred to Hawbaker Engineering to work as an
administrative assistant.[6] After four years of working at Hawbaker
Engineering, in 2014 Conklin was asked to assist with tasks
for Glenn O. Hawbaker's payroll office in addition to her
responsibilities as Hawbaker Engineering's administrative
assistant.[7] Conklin agreed to help as long as it did
not interfere with her duties at Hawbaker
Engineering.[8] Her official job description does not
include any responsibilities for Glenn O. Hawbaker, but it
contains a catch-all provision that states that Conklin is to
“Perform additional assignments per supervisor's
direction.”[9]
In
January 2018, Conklin was diagnosed with temporomandibular
joint dysfunction, more commonly known as “TMJ.”
Conklin's TMJ caused her to suffer severe headaches,
pressure in her eye, and pain in her face and
jaw.[10] While always present, Conklin's pain
increased during weeks when she helped with Glenn O.
Hawbaker's billing because of the additional stress and
anxiety.[11]
In
April 2018, Conklin requested that she be relieved of duties
for Glenn O. Hawbaker for two or three months to help
alleviate her symptoms.[12] Her employer responded by offering
her short-term disability leave, which Conklin did not
accept.[13] Conklin made a formal request for an
ADAAA accommodation on June 15, 2018.[14] Defendants
denied the request, concluding that removing the Glenn O.
Hawbaker duties would not be a reasonable accommodation
because they were part of her essential
function.[15] The only action Defendants took was to
conduct an ergonomic review of Conklin's workstation on
the recommendation of a third-party administrator, which
resulted in no further action.[16]
However,
Defendants began to take a greater interest in Conklin's
performance following her request and EEOC complaint in
October 2018. A few days after the filing, Renata Furman, a
supervisor, asked the Glenn O. Hawbaker employees in payroll
to create a list of complaints concerning
Conklin.[17] On December 28, 2018, Defendants had a
meeting with Conklin, at which she was told that she would
now have to report to a supervisor and that her position
would be considered part-time instead of full-time if she
ceased performing tasks for Glenn O. Hawbaker.[18] Shortly after
this meeting, on January 2, 2019, Conklin reported to Furman
that she felt obstacles were being put in her way of
completing tasks at Glenn O. Hawbaker.[19] Conklin also
believes that she has been treated differently and alienated
ever since making her request.[20]
Conklin
filed her charge with the EEOC on August 20,
2018.[21] On October 15, 2018, the EEOC issued a
right-to-sue letter.[22] Conklin filed the instant lawsuit on
November 5, 2018.[23] On June 6, 2019, Conklin filed a charge
with the EEOC and PHRC alleging retaliation.[24] Conklin's
Fourth Amended Complaint (the operative complaint) was filed
on August 27, 2019.[25] On September 3, 2019, Defendants moved
for summary judgment.[26]
II.
DISCUSSION [27]
The
inciting disagreement at the heart of this case is whether
Conklin's duties for Glenn O. Hawbaker are an essential
function of her job. Conklin, believing they are not,
requested to be relieved of them as an accommodation.
Defendants, believing that they are, denied her request.
Defendants' failure to clearly define Conklin's job
responsibilities, among other issues discussed more fully
below, preclude the entry of summary judgment.
A.
Standard of Review
Summary
judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.”[28] “Facts that could alter the
outcome are ‘material facts,' and disputes are
‘genuine' if evidence exists from which a rational
person could conclude that the position of the person with
the burden of proof on the disputed issue is
correct.”[29]“A defendant meets this standard
when there is an absence of evidence that rationally supports
the plaintiff's case.”[30] “A plaintiff, on
the other hand, must point to admissible evidence that would
be sufficient to show all elements of a prima facie
case under applicable substantive law.”[31]
B.
Failure to Accommodate
The ADA
provides that an employer must make reasonable accommodations
to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise
qualified employee, unless the employer can demonstrate that
the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the
operation of its business.[32] To establish a prima
facie case, Conklin must demonstrate that (1) she has a
“disability” within the meaning of the ADA, (2)
she is qualified to perform the essential functions of the
job with or without a reasonable accommodation, (3) the
employer was informed of the need for an accommodation, and
(4) the employer failed to provide a reasonable
accommodation.[33]
Defendants
argue that Conklin cannot be considered qualified to perform
the essential functions of the job. Conklin requested to
cease performing work for Glenn O. Hawbaker, which she
contends was voluntary work that supplemented her primary
employment with Hawbaker Engineering. Defendants counter that
the Glenn O. Hawbaker work was an essential function of
Conklin's job, and, by requesting to no longer perform
it, she would not be fulfilling necessary essential
functions.
The
evidence in the record does not render this issue appropriate
for summary judgment. Conklin believed that she was an
employee of Hawbaker Engineering, not Glenn O.
Hawbaker.[34] She testified that she initially began
assisting with Glenn O. Hawbaker's payroll duties on a
voluntary basis on the condition that it did not interfere
with her job as Hawbaker Engineering's administrative
assistant.[35] This evidence could support a conclusion
that duties for a separate company were not essential to her
job. Defendants cite her job description that states Conklin
is to “Perform additional assignments per
supervisor's direction” to argue that these
responsibilities were essential, but a simple catch-all
provision does not foreclose a reasonable jury from
concluding that they were not.[36]
Defendants
also contend that they sufficiently engaged in the
interactive process to preclude Conklin's satisfaction of
the fourth element, but this too is disputed. First,
Defendants did not grant Conklin's request; whether this
request would have been a reasonable accommodation is
genuinely contested, as discussed in the previous paragraph.
Further, the extent of Defendants' good-faith
participation in the interactive process is also disputed. A
reasonable jury could conclude that Conklin's physical
therapist's statements recommended that she be relieved
of her Glenn O. Hawbaker duties and that Defendants ignored
this recommendation.[37] A jury could also conclude that the only
accommodation Defendants offered-an ergonomic review of her
workstation that resulted in no changes-was functionally no
accommodation at all.
Because
the facts surrounding the essential functions of
Conklin's job and Defendants' good-faith
participation in the interactive process are disputed, I deny
summary judgment on Conklin's failure-to-accommodate
claim.
C.
...