Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Picture People, Inc.
684 F.3d 981 (2012)
Rule of Law:
An employer is not required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide an accommodation that would eliminate an essential function of a job. An employer's judgment is a primary factor in determining what functions are essential, particularly for customer-facing roles requiring specific communication skills.
Facts:
- Jessica Chrysler, a profoundly deaf individual, was hired by The Picture People to work as a 'performer' in its photography studio.
- The studio manager who hired Chrysler, Arnold Aguilar, was aware of her deafness and initially intended for her to work primarily in the camera room.
- The performer position had four main responsibilities: customer intake, photography, sales, and laboratory duties.
- Chrysler communicated with customers, who were often young children, and their parents by writing notes, gesturing, pointing, and miming.
- After observing Chrysler, a Master Photographer named Libby Johnston found Chrysler's written communication methods to be 'awkward, cumbersome, and impractical' and recommended she be reassigned exclusively to the photo lab.
- Following the busy holiday season, the studio reduced staffing, requiring each performer on a shift to be capable of performing all four job functions.
- Chrysler's hours were eliminated after she complained about them being cut, and she was later counseled for performance issues and for threatening to 'bring a grievance'.
- Chrysler was officially terminated approximately ten months after her last scheduled shift.
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against The Picture People, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of Jessica Chrysler.
- The EEOC alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including failure to accommodate and unlawful termination.
- After discovery, The Picture People filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of The Picture People, finding Chrysler was not a 'qualified individual' under the ADA because she could not perform an essential function of her job.
- The EEOC, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating a deaf employee when the employer determines that verbal communication is an essential function of the job and no reasonable accommodation would enable the employee to perform that function?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Kelly
No. An employer does not violate the ADA by terminating an employee who cannot perform an essential function of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Here, verbal communication was an essential function of the performer position. The court's reasoning is based on a two-part analysis. First, applying the factors from 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3), the court determined that verbal communication is an essential function, giving significant weight to the employer's judgment, the written job description which listed 'strong verbal communication skills' as a qualification, and the nature of the work, which involved fast-paced photo sessions with young children. Second, the court found no reasonable accommodation was available. The EEOC's suggestion to permit non-verbal communication would effectively eliminate an essential function, which the ADA does not require. Providing an ASL interpreter for meetings would not resolve the core inability to communicate verbally with customers during photo shoots and sales, distinguishing this case from precedents where employees could perform their primary duties without an interpreter. As Chrysler was not a 'qualified individual' under the ADA, her discrimination claim fails. Her retaliation claim also fails because The Picture People provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions (post-holiday hour cuts affecting all employees, Chrysler's inability to perform all four roles, and documented performance issues), and the EEOC did not provide sufficient evidence of pretext.
Dissenting - Judge Holloway
Yes. A jury could reasonably find that the employer violated the ADA because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether verbal communication was an essential function of the job or merely a method of performing the essential function of communication. The majority failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Chrysler, ignoring that she had successfully conducted photo shoots and made a 'huge sale,' demonstrating she could perform the job's essential functions effectively through non-verbal means. A jury could conclude the employer's decision was based on 'stereotypic assumptions' about deaf individuals, which the ADA was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the retaliation claim should have survived summary judgment because there was direct evidence of retaliatory motive. The disciplinary notice explicitly reprimanded Chrysler for threatening to 'bring a grievance,' which is a protected activity. This direct evidence, along with the temporal proximity and other circumstantial evidence, is more than sufficient to create a jury question on pretext.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of deference courts often grant to an employer's definition of a job's 'essential functions' under the ADA. It establishes a strong precedent, particularly in the Tenth Circuit, that an employer is not required to eliminate a core job duty, like verbal communication in a fast-paced customer service role, as a reasonable accommodation. The case also illustrates the court's narrow interpretation of 'direct evidence' of retaliation, requiring a statement that explicitly links the adverse action to the protected activity without the need for inference, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to overcome summary judgment on such claims.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Picture People, Inc. (2012)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"