Richardson v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, et al

Filing 920100205

Opinion

Download PDF
var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase() var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) ) var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 ) var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) ) var floatwnd = 0 var WPFootnote1 = '                   Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.\ ' var WPFootnote2 = '                   Richardson voluntarily dismissed her claims against the\ workers\' compensation administrator, including the claim for\ tortious interference with contract.\ ' var WPFootnote3 = '                   The parties assume that the Maine Human Rights Act is\ coextensive with the ADA in all material respects. We do not\ question that assumption here.\ ' var WPFootnote4 = '                   The EEOC Interpretive Guidance was published as an\ appendix to the regulations implementing Title I of the ADA. See\ Equal Employment Opportunity for Individuals With Disabilities, 56\ Fed. Reg. 35,726, 35,739 (July 26, 1991) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt.\ 1630, app.). We have often looked to it in construing the ADA. \ See, e.g., Freadman v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91,\ 104 (1st Cir. 2007); Grenier v. Cyanamid Plastics, Inc., 70 F.3d\ 667, 672 (1st Cir. 1995).\ ' var WPFootnote5 = '                   Richardson has objected to the job description as\ inadmissible hearsay. The district court overruled her objection\ on the ground that the job description was properly authenticated\ as a business record. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). We agree that the\ affidavit submitted by Friendly\'s is adequate for that purpose. \ The district court did not err in admitting the job description.\ ' var WPFootnote6 = '                   We address in more detail below Richardson\'s contention\ that it was permissible for her to delegate manual tasks to other\ restaurant employees. See infra.\ ' var WPFootnote7 = '                   Of course, it does not follow that an otherwise essential\ job function may be deemed non-essential simply because there are\ a large number of employees available to perform it. A job\ function "may be considered essential for any of [the] reasons"\ listed in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2); however, none of those reasons,\ standing alone, is necessary to support a finding that a job\ function is essential.\ ' var WPFootnote8 = '                   The question whether a particular job function is\ essential is for the jury when there is sufficient evidence. See,\ e.g., Tobin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. ("Tobin II"), 553 F.3d 121,\ 136 (1st Cir. 2009); Hamlin v. Charter Twp. of Flint, 165 F.3d 426,\ 430-31 (6th Cir. 1999); 3C Fed. Jury Practice & Instructions\ § 172.33 (5th ed. 2001 & Supp. 2009).\ ' var WPFootnote9 = '                   In most cases, the relevant date for determining whether\ an individual is qualified for her position is the date of the\ adverse employment decision. See EEOC v. Stowe-Pharr Mills, Inc.,\ 216 F.3d 373, 379 (4th Cir. 2000); EEOC Interpretive Guidance,\ § 1630.2(m). But cf. McKnight v. General Motors Corp., 550 F.3d\ 519, 522-28 (6th Cir. 2008) (discussing a circuit split over the\ relevant date for cases involving discrimination against a retired\ employee). The parties have presented conflicting evidence\ regarding the date of Richardson\'s termination. We use\ Richardson\'s proposed date, January 8, 2007, because it is\ supported in the record and is more favorable to her as the non-moving party below.\ ' function WPShow( WPid, WPtext ) { if( bInlineFloats ) eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" ); else { if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed ) floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" ); floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" ); floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( WPtext ); floatwnd.document.write( 'Close'); floatwnd.document.write( "

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?