Christina Jacobs v. NC Admin Office of the Court

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cv-00169-BO. [999544235]. [13-2212]

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 1 of 46

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2212

CHRISTINA LYNN JACOBS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
N.C. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS; JAN KENNEDY, in
her official capacity as New Hanover County Clerk of
Superior Court,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
BRENDA TUCKER, New Hanover County Clerk of Superior Court;
MELISSA GRIFFIN; DEBRA EXCELL,
Defendants.
------------------------THE NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK; NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON
MENTAL ILLNESS NORTH CAROLINA; THE BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL
HEALTH LAW; MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA; NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON
MENTAL ILLNESS,
Amici Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00169-BO)

Argued:

December 9, 2014

Decided:

March 12, 2015

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 2 of 46

Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published
opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opinion, in which Judge Keenan
and Judge Harris joined.

ARGUED: Vanessa Katherine Lucas, EDELSTEIN & PAYNE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Kathryn Hicks Shields, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Lisa Grafstein, Mercedes Restucha-Klem,
DISABILITY RIGHTS NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General, Grady
L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Brian East, DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS, Austin, Texas,
for Amici Curiae.

2

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 3 of 46

FLOYD, Circuit Judge
Christina Jacobs worked as a deputy clerk at a courthouse
in New Hanover County, North Carolina.

Although she allegedly

suffered from social anxiety disorder, her employer assigned her
to provide customer service at the courthouse front counter.
Believing
perform

that
this

her

mental

inherently

accommodation--to
interpersonal

be

illness

social

assigned

interaction.

task,

to

Her

hindered

a

her

role

employer

to

requested

Jacobs

ability

an

with

less

waited

direct

three

weeks

without acting on her request and then terminated her.
Jacobs
Americans

brought

with

suit

against

Disabilities

Act

her

(ADA).

employer
The

under

district

granted summary judgment to the employer on all counts.

the
court

Because

the district court erred by resolving disputed facts in favor of
the movant and for the reasons that follow, we reverse the grant
of summary judgment in part and remand for trial.

I.
Christina
childhood. 1

Jacobs

has

suffered

from

mental

illness

since

At ten, Jacobs was diagnosed with severe situational

1

In reviewing de novo the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the North Carolina Administrative Office of
the Courts, we “view the facts and all justifiable inferences
arising therefrom in the light most favorable to” Jacobs, as the
nonmoving party.
Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d
3

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

performance
several

Filed: 03/12/2015

anxiety.

days

At

after

Pg: 4 of 46

twelve,

threatening

she

harm

was

to

hospitalized

herself

and

for

others.

During her hospitalization she was diagnosed with mood disorder
and selective mutism, and prescribed antidepressants.
age

of

18,

she

received

an

additional

diagnosis

At the

of

social

anxiety disorder for which she has been treated intermittently
by several physicians.
Social anxiety disorder is characterized by a “marked and
persistent fear of . . . social or performance situations in
which [a] person is exposed to unfamiliar people or to possible
scrutiny

by

Statistical

others.”

Am.

Manual

Mental

of

[hereinafter DSM-IV]. 2
disorder

either

situations,

or

distress.”

Id.

Psychiatric

Ass’n,

Disorders

456

Diagnostic
(4th

ed.

and

2000)

A person suffering from social anxiety

“avoid[s]”

the

feared

“endure[s

them]

with

social

or

intense

performance
anxiety

or

A person can only be diagnosed with social

anxiety disorder when the “avoidance, anxious anticipation, or
distress

in

interferes
occupational

the

feared

significantly
. . .

social
with

the

functioning,

308, 312 (4th Cir. 2013).
conforms to this standard.

or

performance
person’s

or

social

situation(s)

normal

routine,

activities

or

The following statement of facts

2

We take judicial notice of the DSM-IV (and not the current
DSM-V) because the expert witnesses in this case applied the
diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
4

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

relationships

Filed: 03/12/2015

. . . .”

Pg: 5 of 46

Id.

The

American

Psychiatric

Association (APA) notes that social anxiety disorder can create
a

“vicious

cycle

of

anticipatory

anxiety

leading

to

fearful

cognition and anxiety . . . , which leads to actual or perceived
poor

performance

. . .

,

which

leads

to

increased anticipatory anxiety . . . .”

embarrassment

Id. at 451.

and

“A job

promotion to a position requiring public speaking may result in
the

emergence

of

[social

anxiety

disorder]

previously never needed to speak in public.”

in

someone

who

Id. at 453.

In January 2009, Jacobs was hired by Brenda Tucker, the
elected clerk of court, as an office assistant in the criminal
division
Courts

of

the

(AOC).

included

North
As

an

microfilming

Carolina
office
and

Administrative

assistant,

filing.

Less

Office

Jacobs’s
than

a

job
month

of

the

duties
after

Jacobs started working, Tucker promoted her to the position of
deputy clerk. 3
At the time of Jacobs’s employment, 30 total deputy clerks
worked in the criminal division.
clerks
counter.

provided

customer

service

Four or five of the deputy
at

the

division’s

front

The remaining deputy clerks performed other filing and

record-keeping tasks, many of which do not require face-to-face

3

It is undisputed that at the time of her promotion Jacobs
met or exceeded the minimum eligibility requirements for the
position.
5

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

interaction with the public. 4

Pg: 6 of 46

AOC supervisors typically assigned

the most junior deputy clerks to the front counter.

However,

all deputy clerks--regardless of assignment and seniority--had
the same title and job description.
In March 2009, Jacobs began training to work at the front
counter.

She was assigned to work four days a week at the front

counter and one day a week microfilming.

Jacobs soon began to

experience extreme stress, nervousness, and panic attacks while
working at the front counter.

She became particularly panicked

when she was asked a question to which she did not immediately
know the answer--a common occurrence when working behind the
counter.

She attributed these symptoms to her diagnosed social

anxiety disorder.
On or about May 5, 2009, Jacobs went to a supervisor, Debra
Excell, and told Excell that she had social anxiety disorder and
was

not

feeling

healthy

while

working

at

the

front

counter.

Jacobs told Excell that she had received treatment (including
medication) for mental health issues while in college, but that
she was not currently under a doctor’s care.

Excell encouraged

Jacobs to seek treatment from the doctor who had helped her in

4

For example, disposition and continuance clerks work
primarily on the computer and do not provide direct customer
service.
6

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

college.

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 7 of 46

After her meeting with Excell, Jacobs went to a doctor

and began receiving treatment for anxiety and depression.
Excell subsequently told Tucker about her conversation with
Jacobs.

Tucker took handwritten notes on Excell’s oral account

of her conversation with Jacobs, which included the phrases “too
stressful,” “nerve issues,” “anxiety disorder,” and “might have
to go back to [the doctor].”

J.A. 823.

Tucker’s assistant

placed the notes in Jacobs’s personnel file.
During

the

course

of

her

employment,

Jacobs

was

never

written up for any disciplinary infraction or performance issue.
There are no notes in her personnel file indicating any problems
with her performance.

Yet the AOC now alleges, inter alia, that

Jacobs was a slow worker, impermissibly disclosed information to
members

of

supervisors.

the

public,

and

had

outbursts

with

coworkers

and

The AOC has produced no documentary evidence (such

as e-mails) corroborating these allegations.
On September 8, 2009, Jacobs sent an e-mail to her three
immediate supervisors (Excell, Jan Kennedy, and Melissa Griffin)
in which she disclosed her disability for a second time and
requested an accommodation.

Specifically, Jacobs requested that

she be “trained to fill a different role in the Clerk’s Office
and perhaps work at the front counter only once a week.”
798.

J.A.

The next day, Jacobs followed up in person with Kennedy.

Kennedy told Jacobs that only Tucker had the power to act on
7

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 8 of 46

Jacobs’s request and, because Tucker was currently on a threeweek vacation, Jacobs would have to wait until Tucker returned.
Soon after her meeting with Kennedy, Jacobs forwarded her e-mail
request to Tucker.
While she was waiting for Tucker to return and address her
accommodation request, Jacobs sought to use some accrued leave.
Kennedy questioned Jacobs about why she wanted leave and denied
her

request.

Jacobs’s

previous

leave

requests

were

not

questioned and had always been approved.
Tucker alleges that while she was on vacation, she did not
check her e-mail and asked to be called only in the event of an
emergency.
Alice

She allegedly received a call from her assistant,

Radewicz,

informing

sleeping at her desk.

her

that

Jacobs

had

been

spotted

Tucker testified that this was the only

call she received during her three-week absence.
Upon returning to the office on September 29, 2009, Tucker
called Jacobs into her office for a meeting.

Excell, Kennedy,

and Griffin were already in Tucker’s office when Jacobs arrived,
where

they

had

just

concluded

a

meeting

regarding

Jacobs.

Jacobs also saw a copy of her e-mail requesting an accommodation
on Tucker’s desk, annotated in someone’s handwriting.

Tucker

later testified that she had written the notes on the e-mail
printout.

Jacobs assumed that the meeting was about her request

8

Appeal: 13-2212

for

an

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

accommodation

and

Pg: 9 of 46

recorded

the

meeting

on

a

small

personal audio recorder.
Jacobs told Tucker that she had wanted to meet regarding
“just what the e-mail said.” 5
as

to

what

e-mail

Jacobs

J.A. 827.

was

Tucker did not inquire

referring.

Instead,

she

told

Jacobs that she was being fired because she was not “getting it”
and

Tucker

did

not

“have

any

place

[that

she

could]

use

[Jacobs’s] services.”

Id.

She did not mention Jacobs’s alleged

sleeping on the job.

When Jacobs asked Tucker whether she was

being fired “because of the e-mail,” Tucker responded that “it
doesn’t have anything to do with the e-mail.”
After

her

termination,

Jacobs

timely

Id.
filed

a

Charge

of

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC).

During the EEOC investigation, Tucker denied that she

knew of Jacobs’s disability and that she had read the e-mail
before deciding to terminate Jacobs.

After Jacobs received a

favorable determination from the EEOC, the Department of Justice
issued a Right to Sue letter.
Jacobs then timely filed suit against the AOC and against
Jan Kennedy (Tucker’s successor) in her official capacity as
clerk of court.

Jacobs’s amended complaint alleges five causes

5

All quotations are to Jacobs’s recording of the
termination meeting on page 827 of the joint appendix, and not
to Jacobs’s transcription of the recording.
9

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

of action,

6

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 10 of 46

three of which are pertinent to this appeal: (i)

disability discrimination under the ADA; (ii) failure to provide
a reasonable accommodation under the ADA; and (iii) retaliation
under the ADA. 7

The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In a brief opinion, the district court granted the AOC’s
motion for summary judgment.

Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of

the Courts, No. 7:11-CV-169-BO, 2013 WL 4736171, at *1 (E.D.N.C.
Sept. 3, 2013).

Although the AOC conceded for summary-judgment

purposes that Jacobs had a disability, the district court found
that Jacobs was not disabled as a matter of law and that she had
6

Jacobs’s complaint also alleged that the AOC committed a
per se violation of the ADA by commingling her medical records
with her personnel file.
The district court granted summary
judgment
because
the
ostensible
“medical
records”
were
voluntarily provided by Jacobs.
Jacobs does not appeal the
grant of summary judgment on this claim, and we therefore save
the question of whether the ADA’s confidentiality provisions
apply to the voluntary disclosure of disability for another day.
7

Jacobs purports to appeal two other causes of action:
discrimination and retaliation under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794); and wrongful discharge in
violation of North Carolina public policy.
However, Jacobs
failed to discuss these claims (except in passing) in the
argument section of her opening brief, contrary to the
requirement of Rule 28(a)(8)(A) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate
Procedure
that
the
brief
contain
“appellant's
contentions and the reasons for them.”
Specifically, she did
not challenge the district court’s finding that “stating a claim
under the Rehabilitation Act is more difficult” than under the
ADA.
J.A. 1039.
We therefore find that Jacobs has abandoned
these claims on appeal. Sandlands C & D LLC v. Cnty. of Horry,
737 F.3d 45, 51 n.4 (4th Cir. 2013); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
10

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 11 of 46

therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of disability
discrimination and failure to grant a reasonable accommodation.
Id. at *3.

The district court also found that there was no

evidence in the record that Tucker knew of Jacobs’s request for
an accommodation at the time she decided to fire Jacobs, and
that Jacobs therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of
retaliation.
The
September

Id.

district
3,

court

2013.

entered
Jacobs

judgment
timely

against

Jacobs

appealed.

We

on
have

jurisdiction over final judgments of the district court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II.
A.
Ordinarily

we

would

begin

our

discussion

with

a

brief

restatement of the standard of review for a motion for summary
judgment.

When

“the

opinion

below

reflects

a

clear

misapprehension of summary judgment standards,” however, further
elaboration is warranted.
1868 (2014) (per curiam).

Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861,
A district court “shall grant summary

judgment if 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.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

“A dispute is genuine

if ‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
11

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

party.’”

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 12 of 46

Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313

(4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 673
F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir. 2012)).

“A fact is material if it

‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’”
Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the district
court must “view the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to
the’”

nonmoving

Adickes

v.

party.

S.H.

Kress

Tolan,
&

Co.,

134

S.

398

Ct.

U.S.

at

1866

(quoting

144,

157

(1970)).

“Summary judgment cannot be granted merely because the court
believes that the movant will prevail if the action is tried on
the merits.”

10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller et al.,

Federal Practice & Procedure § 2728 (3d ed. 1998). 8
therefore

cannot

determinations.

weigh

the

Mercantile

evidence

Peninsula

or
Bank

make
v.

The court
credibility

French

(In

re

French), 499 F.3d 345, 352 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Committee’s
Note (1963) (“ Where an issue as to a material fact cannot be
resolved without observation of the demeanor of witnesses in
8

As Professor Arthur Miller noted recently, “a motion
designed simply for identifying trial-worthy issues has become,
on occasion, a vehicle for resolving trial-worthy issues.”
Arthur R. Miller, Simplified Pleading, Meaningful Days in Court,
and Trials on the Merits: Reflections on the Deformation of
Federal Procedure, 88 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 286, 312 (2013).
12

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 13 of 46

order to evaluate their credibility, summary judgment is not
appropriate.”).
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari and issued a
decision in a seemingly routine summary judgment case because
the

lower

court

contradicted

had

some

“fail[ed]
its

of

to

factual

key

credit

evidence

conclusions”

that
and

“improperly ‘weighed the evidence’ and resolved disputed issues
in

favor

of

(brackets

moving

omitted)

Specifically,
court)

the

the

repeatedly

plaintiff

and

party.”

(quoting
court

of

failed

members

of

Tolan,

Anderson,
appeals

134
477

S.

U.S.

(affirming

to

credit

the

his

immediate

Ct.

at

the

testimony
family,

at

1866
249).

district
of

which

the
often

contradicted the court’s statement of the “central facts” of the
case.

Id. at 1866–67.

Because the court of appeals “weigh[ed]

the evidence and reach[ed] factual inferences contrary to [the
nonmovant’s] competent evidence,” the Supreme Court vacated the
court’s

affirmance

judgment.

of

the

district

court’s

grant

of

summary

Id. at 1868.

B.
In this case, as in Tolan, the district court erred by
failing to consider all of the evidence in the record.

The

district court’s opinion also states the facts in the light most
favorable to the AOC--not Jacobs, the nonmovant.
13

Strikingly,

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 14 of 46

both of the district court’s key factual findings--that Jacobs
was

not

disabled

and

that

Tucker

did

not

learn

of

Jacobs’s

accommodation request prior to terminating her--rest on factual
inferences

contrary

to

Jacobs’s

competent

evidence.

The

district court thus improperly resolved factual issues at the
summary judgment stage, in contravention of well-settled law.
We discuss these errors in turn.

1.
We begin by noting several examples of the district court’s
misapplication

of

the

summary

judgment

standard

in

its

recitation of the facts.
First, the district court stated that Jacobs “had what was
described as a ‘melt-down’ with a co-worker . . . [that] caused
a disruption in the office . . . .”

J.A. 1034.

However, the

co-worker allegedly involved in the outburst denied that it ever
occurred.

The AOC witnesses who testified regarding the alleged

outburst did not directly witness it and could not recall how
they had learned about it.
Second,

the

district

court

accepted

the

AOC’s

characterization of Jacobs’s May 5 meeting with Excell: “[T]he
plaintiff told Debra Excell that she was having social issues
and

was

nervous

(emphasis added).

about

working

at

the

front

counter.”

Id.

Jacobs testified that she told Excell she had
14

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

social

Filed: 03/12/2015

anxiety

disorder--not

Pg: 15 of 46

mere

“social

issues.”

Tucker’s

handwritten notes on her conversation with Excell regarding this
meeting,

in

which

she

wrote

the

words

“anxiety

disorder,”

support Jacobs’s account of the conversation.
Third, the district court stated as an undisputed fact that
Jacobs “did not tell anyone she was disabled” in April or May of
2009.

Id.

This is inconsistent with the testimony of Jacobs,

Excell, and Tucker, who all agreed that Jacobs told Excell she
had anxiety issues that were impacting her work and for which
she had received medical treatment in the past.
Fourth and finally, the district court adopted the AOC’s
erroneous contention that its expert witness failed to examine
Jacobs because Jacobs did not consent to be examined.
1035

(“[T]his

was

done

in

lieu

of

examining

the

See J.A.
plaintiff

personally because she refused to submit to such an evaluation.”
(emphasis added)).

As the record makes clear, the AOC never

brought a motion for mental examination under Rule 35 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and did not respond to the
offer by Jacobs’s counsel to proceed with such an examination
without motion.
Considering the order in its entirety, we conclude that the
district court impermissibly “credited the evidence of the party
seeking summary judgment and failed properly to acknowledge key

15

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 16 of 46

evidence offered by the party opposing that motion.”
S. Ct. at 1867–68.

Tolan, 134

This was error.

2.
The district court also erred by concluding that Jacobs was
not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

During the course

of discovery both parties produced expert testimony by mental
health

specialists

forensic
mental

on

psychologist

disorders,

this

issue.

Dr. Claudia

Social

Phobia

After

Coleman
and

examining

concluded

Anxiety

Jacobs,

that

Disorder,

constitute a disability as defined by the [ADA].”

“her
. . .

J.A. 807.

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. George Corvin, the AOC’s expert, did
not examine Jacobs.
review

of

her

Instead, Dr. Corvin based his report on a

medical

records,

social

media

use,

employment

records, and the report of a private investigator who observed
Jacobs while she was at work at a new job.

Dr. Corvin concluded

that it was possible that Jacobs met the diagnostic criteria for
social anxiety disorder but that “her medical records alone are
insufficient to establish such a diagnosis.”

J.A. 222.

He also

determined from the private investigator’s report that Jacobs
was

currently

succeeding

in

a

new

customer

service

job,

and

thereby inferred that she had not experienced “any significant
level of anxiety or other psychiatric impairment” while working
at the AOC.

Id.
16

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 17 of 46

The district court determined from “Dr. Corvin’s report and
the

plaintiff’s

disabled.

behavior

J.A. 1038.

[at]

work”

that

Jacobs

was

not

Inexplicably, the district court omits

any mention of Dr. Coleman’s conflicting report.

Additionally,

Dr. Corvin’s report simply does not support the district court’s
finding of no disability--rather, Dr. Corvin concluded only that
Jacobs’s medical records were equivocal on this question.
As in Tolan, the district court “neglected to adhere to the
fundamental

principle

that

at

the

summary

judgment

stage,

reasonable inferences should be drawn in favor of the nonmoving
party.”

134 S. Ct. at 1868.

Rather, the court incorrectly drew

all inferences in favor of the AOC, not Jacobs.

We therefore

reverse

there

the

district

court’s

determination

that

is

no

is

no

genuine dispute as to whether Jacobs had a disability.

3.
The

district

court

also

determined

that

“there

evidence that Ms. Tucker knew that the plaintiff had requested
an accommodation at the time she made the decision to terminate
her.”

J.A. 1038 (emphasis added).

This finding has no basis in

the record.
Rather, the record taken in the light most favorable to
Jacobs demonstrates just the opposite.

It is undisputed that

Jacobs e-mailed her request for an accommodation to Tucker on
17

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

September 9, 2009.

Pg: 18 of 46

Jacobs also e-mailed her request to her

immediate supervisors, and discussed her request in person with
Kennedy.

Kennedy told Jacobs that she could not act on Jacobs’s

request without discussing it first with Tucker.
to

the

office

Jacobs’s

on

September

immediate

29,

Tucker

supervisors--Kennedy,

held

Upon returning
a

Excell,

meeting
and

with

Griffin.

Kennedy testified that the supervisors discussed Jacobs during
this meeting.

Tucker then called Jacobs into the meeting, and

summarily fired her in front of Kennedy, Excell, and Griffin.

A

reasonable jury could infer from these facts that before Jacobs
walked

in,

any

or

all

of

Jacobs’s

supervisors

would

have

discussed the accommodation request e-mail.
The record taken in the light most favorable to Jacobs also
demonstrates that Tucker read the e-mail before firing Jacobs.
When Jacobs entered Tucker’s office she saw an annotated copy of
her request for accommodation sitting on Tucker’s desk.

Tucker

admits to having annotated the e-mail but testified that she did
so only after the meeting.

Tucker cannot remember when she

printed the e-mail but testified that it may have been during
the

meeting

meeting.

and

that

she

first

read

the

e-mail

during

the

This account is inconsistent with the audio recording

of the meeting, which a reasonable jury could find does not
contain any pauses long enough to account for Tucker finding and

18

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

printing the e-mail.

Pg: 19 of 46

A reasonable jury could credit Jacobs’s

testimony over Tucker’s on this factual question.
Finally, Tucker’s statements during the termination meeting
indicate that she knew about Jacobs’s accommodation request.

At

the beginning of the meeting, Jacobs said she wanted to discuss
“just what the e-mail said.”

J.A. 827.

what e-mail Jacobs was referring.

Tucker did not ask to

Instead, Tucker told Jacobs

that, at the time of her hiring, Jacobs “expressed [she] would
be able to handle all of that [i.e., front counter work], that
it wouldn’t be problematic for you.”

Id.

Tucker added, “I

don’t have any place that I can use your services.”

Id.

If

Tucker

of

the

had

accommodation

called

the

request,

meeting

it

is

without

unlikely

knowledge

that

addressed the possibility of reassigning Jacobs.

she

would

have

Moreover, when

Jacobs asked whether she was being fired “because of the email,” Tucker responded that “it doesn’t have anything to do
with the e-mail.”
contents

of

the

Id.
e-mail,

If Tucker were truly unaware of the
it

is

unlikely

that

she

would

have

answered the question in this way.
A reasonable jury could infer from Jacobs’s, Tucker’s, and
Kennedy’s testimony and from the recording of the conversation
that Tucker knew about Jacobs’s accommodation request at the
time she decided to terminate Jacobs.

Accordingly, we reverse

the district court’s determination to the contrary.
19

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 20 of 46

III.
Merely concluding that disputed issues of fact exist as to
whether Jacobs was disabled and whether Tucker knew about her
accommodation request does not end our inquiry.

Rather, we must

also decide whether disputed issues of fact exist as to elements
of each of Jacobs’s three claims: (i) disability discrimination;
(ii)

retaliation;

accommodation.

and

(iii)

failure

to

provide

a

reasonable

We address each claim in turn.

A.
We first consider whether we should affirm summary judgment
on Jacobs’s disability discrimination claim.
To establish a claim for disability discrimination under
the ADA, a plaintiff must prove “(1) that she has a disability,
(2) that she is a ‘qualified individual’ for the employment in
question, and (3) that [her employer] discharged her (or took
other

adverse

employment

action)

because

of

her

disability.”

EEOC v. Stowe-Pharr Mills, Inc., 216 F.3d 373, 377 (4th Cir.
2000).

Disability discrimination may be proven through direct

and indirect evidence or through the McDonnell Douglas burdenshifting framework. 9

See Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44,

49–50 & n.3 (2003).
9

McDonnell

Douglas

Corp.

(1973).
20

v.

Green,

411

U.S.

792,

802

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 21 of 46

1.
The AOC argues that Jacobs did not have a disability as a
matter of law.

10

“Disability” is defined by the ADA as “a

physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities.”
provides

a

nonexhaustive

including

42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).
list

“speaking,”

of

major

life

activities,

“concentrating,”

“communicating,” and “working.”

The ADA

“thinking,”

Id. § 12102(2)(A).

The EEOC

has also identified “interacting with others” as a major life
activity.

29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i).

“In September 2008, Congress broadened the definition of
‘disability’ by enacting the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L.
No. 110–325, 122 Stat. 3553 . . . .”

Summers v. Altarum Inst.,

Corp., 740 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2014).

The ADA Amendments

Act (ADAAA) was intended to make it “easier for people with
disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA.”
§ 1630.1(c)(4).

29 C.F.R.

The regulation clarifies that “[t]he primary

object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be
whether covered entities have complied with their obligations
and

whether

individual

discrimination

meets

the

has

definition

10

occurred,
of

not

disability.”

whether
Id.

the

“[T]he

As noted above, this argument is inconsistent with AOC’s
prior litigation position. J.A. 1027 (“For the sake of summary
judgment, Defendants have conceded that Plaintiff had a
disability.”).
21

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 22 of 46

question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability
under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.”
No. 110-325, § 2(b)(5) (2008).

Pub. L.

In enacting the ADAAA, Congress

abrogated earlier inconsistent caselaw.

Summers, 740 F.3d at

331.
Jacobs

alleges

that

her

social

anxiety

disorder

substantially limited her ability to interact with others and
was

therefore

evidence

in

a

the

disability.
record

shows

The
that

AOC

first

Jacobs

argues

was

that

suffering

social anxiety disorder while employed as a deputy clerk.
is

clearly

incorrect.

As

discussed

above,

the

no

from
This

testimony

of

Dr. Coleman suffices to establish a genuine dispute of fact on
this question.
The AOC next argues that Jacobs’s social anxiety disorder
did

not

substantially

limit

any

major

life

activity

because

“interacting with others” is not a major life activity.

This

argument constitutes a challenge to the EEOC’s interpretation of
the

ADA.

“interacting

See
with

29

C.F.R.

others”

as

§ 1630.2(i)(1)(i)
a

major

life

(identifying

activity).

We

therefore apply the familiar two-step Chevron analysis. 11

See

Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 427 (4th Cir.

11

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837 (1984).
22

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 23 of 46

1999) (affording Chevron deference to the EEOC’s interpretation
of a Title VII provision expressly adopted by the ADA).
Under Chevron, we first ask whether Congress has “directly
spoken”

to

the

precise

question

of

others is a major life activity.
its

express

language,

the

activities

(emphasis

include,

added)).

We

interacting

Summers, 740 F.3d at 331.

statute’s

activities is not exhaustive.
life

whether

list

of

major

with
By
life

42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) (“[M]ajor

but

are

therefore

not

limited

conclude

that

to

. . . .”

Congress

has

deliberately left a gap for the agency to fill, and proceed to
Chevron’s second step--determining whether the EEOC’s regulation
is reasonable.

Summers, 740 F.3d at 331-32.

“The stated goal of the ADAAA is to expand the scope of
protection

available

under

permits.”

Id. at 332.

the

Act

as

broadly

as

the

text

A major life activity is one that is “of

central importance to daily life.”

Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky. Inc.

v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 197 (2002) (abrogated in part by the
ADAAA).

Few activities are more central to the human condition

than interacting with others.

If “bending” and “lifting” are

major life activities, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), it is certainly
reasonable for the EEOC to conclude that interacting with others
falls

in

others”

the

as

a

same
major

category.
life

Identifying

activity

“interacting

comparable

to

“caring

with
for

oneself,” “speaking,” “learning,” and “communicating” advances
23

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 24 of 46

the broad remedial purpose of the ADA.

We therefore defer to

the EEOC’s determination and hold that interacting with others
is a major life activity.
The AOC also argues that Jacobs has failed to show that her
alleged

social

ability

to

anxiety

interact

disorder

with

substantially

others.

Prior

to

limited
the

her

ADAAA,

a

plaintiff seeking to prove disability needed to show that she
was “significantly restricted” in a major life activity.

See,

e.g., Pollard v. High’s of Balt., Inc., 281 F.3d 462, 467 (4th
Cir. 2002).

The ADAAA expressly rejected this rule as imposing

“too high a standard.”

Pub. L. No. 110-325 § 2(a)(8).

The

regulations define a substantially limiting impairment as one
that

“substantially

limits

the

ability

of

an

individual

to

perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the
general

population.”

impairment

need

not

29

C.F.R.

prevent,

or

§ 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).
significantly

or

12

“An

severely

restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity
in order to be considered substantially limiting.”
The

AOC

substantially

argues
limited

that
in

Jacobs

interacting

12

could
with

not

others

Id.
have
because

been
she

Because both parties accept the EEOC regulations as
instructive, we assume without deciding that they are reasonable
and have no occasion to decide what level of deference, if any,
they are due.
See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 194; Heiko v. Colombo
Sav. Bank, F.S.B., 434 F.3d 249, 255 n.1 (4th Cir. 2006).
24

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 25 of 46

“interact[ed] with others on a daily basis,” “routinely answered
inquiries from the public at the front counter,” “socialized
with

her

co-workers

outside

interaction on Facebook.

of

work,”

and

engaged

in

Appellees’ Br. at 26, 29.

social
The AOC

misapprehends both the meaning of “substantially limits” and the
nature of social anxiety disorder.
A

person

need

not

live

as

a

hermit

in

order

“substantially limited” in interacting with others.

to

be

According

to the APA, a person with social anxiety disorder will either
avoid social situations or “endure the social or performance
situation . . . with intense anxiety.”

DSM-IV, supra, at 451. 13

Thus, the fact that Jacobs may have endured social situations
does not per se preclude a finding that she had social anxiety
disorder.

Rather,

Jacobs

need

only

show

situations “with intense anxiety.”

Id.

testimony

counter

that

working

the

front

she

endured

these

At a minimum, Jacobs’s
caused

her

extreme

stress and panic attacks creates a disputed issue of fact on
this

issue.

14

Her

testimony

is

also

consistent

with

13

We also note in passing that if Jacobs in fact took
longer than necessary to complete her microfilming work and
procrastinated in returning to the front desk (as the AOC
alleges), this may constitute avoidant behavior consistent with
a diagnosis of social anxiety disorder.
14

Although members of the public will not experience
intense anxiety and panic when asked a question by a stranger,
Jacobs alleges that working the front counter caused her extreme
stress and panic attacks.
According to the DSM-IV, between 3%
25

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 26 of 46

Dr. Coleman’s testimony that Jacobs suffered from social anxiety
disorder within the meaning of the DSM-IV.
The undisputed facts that Jacobs spoke to coworkers and
attempted to perform her job at the front counter are therefore
not fatal to her claim.
coworkers

in

her

That she attended several outings with

nine

months

dispositive--answering
constitutes

a

in

the

office

at

the

questions

performance

situation

that

is

also

front
is

hardly
counter

different

in

character from having lunch with coworkers, and a reasonable
jury may conclude that Jacobs’s allegedly debilitating anxiety
was specific to that situation.
Jacobs’s

Facebook

activity

Finally, to the extent that

constitutes

a

“mitigating

measure”

(that is, a form of exposure therapy by which Jacobs attempted
to overcome her anxiety through social interaction that was not
face-to-face

and

not

consider

in

determining

it

in

real

time)
the

we

are

existence

not
of

permitted
a

limitation on her ability to interact with others.
§ 12102(4)(E)(i).

We

therefore

find

that

a

to

substantial
42 U.S.C.

reasonable

jury

and 13% of people will experience social anxiety disorder at
some point in their life. DSM-IV, supra, at 453.
Just 10% of
people who experience a fear of public speaking experience
enough impairment or distress to be diagnosed with social
anxiety disorder.
Id.
We therefore conclude that social
anxiety disorder limits sufferers “as compared to most people in
the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).

26

Appeal: 13-2212

could

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

conclude

that

Jacobs

Pg: 27 of 46

was

substantially

limited

in

her

ability to interact with others and thus disabled within the
meaning of the ADA.

2.
We turn next to the second element of the prima facie case:
whether Jacobs has shown that she was a qualified individual for
the employment in question.

The AOC argues that no reasonable

jury could find that, at the time of her discharge, Jacobs was
“performing

her

job

at

a

legitimate expectations.”
Educ.

Radio,

Inc.,

53

level

that

met

her

employer’s

See Ennis v. Nat’l Ass’n of Bus. &
F.3d

55,

58,

61–62

(4th

Cir.

1995)

(finding that summary judgment was appropriate when an employee
had

received

written

numerous

reprimands

over

negative
three

performance

years,

was

evaluations

suspended

for

and
poor

performance, and conceded that she was not a model employee and
made too many personal phone calls).
argument

with

considerable

The AOC supports this

testimony

regarding

Jacobs’s

shortcomings as an employee.
Jacobs

responds

by

denying

these

allegations

and

noting

that she was promoted to the position of deputy clerk after only
a month on the job.

She further argues that she never received

a negative performance review, evaluation, or written warning,
and that the AOC’s testimony could be discredited at trial as
27

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 28 of 46

inconsistent and contradictory.

Cf. EEOC v. Sears Roebuck &

Co.,

Cir.

243

F.3d

846,

852–53

(4th

2001)

(holding

that

an

employer’s provision of shifting and inconsistent justifications
for taking an adverse employment action “is, in and of itself,
probative of pretext”).

For example, AOC witnesses testified

that Ashley English, an AOC employee, told them about Jacobs’s
performance

issues

and

inappropriate

outbursts.

English,

however, testified that she never discussed Jacobs’s performance
with

the

AOC

inappropriate
total

lack

witnesses

outburst.

of

and
From

documentary

that
these

evidence

Jacobs

never

had

an

inconsistencies

and

the

of

Jacobs’s

alleged

poor

performance, a reasonable jury could conclude that Jacobs was
qualified for the position of deputy clerk.

3.
Disputed issues of material fact also exist as to the third
element of the prima facie case--causation.

The AOC argues that

Jacobs cannot prove causation because no reasonable jury could
find that Tucker knew of Jacobs’s disability at the time Jacobs
was terminated.

We disagree.

First, the note Tucker placed in Jacobs’s personnel file
demonstrates that Tucker was aware as early as May 5, 2009 (more
than three months before the termination) that Jacobs had “nerve
issues,” an “anxiety disorder,” and that she “might have to go
28

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

back to [the doctor].”

Pg: 29 of 46

J.A. 823.

Second, just before firing

Jacobs, Tucker met with the three supervisors who had received
Jacobs’s

e-mailed

accommodation

request.

One

of

these

supervisors told Jacobs that she intended to discuss the request
with Tucker upon Tucker’s return from vacation.
reasonable

inferences

in

Jacobs’s

favor,

Drawing all

Tucker

and

the

supervisors likely discussed Jacobs’s disability at this meeting
immediately before firing her.

A reasonable jury could thus

find that Tucker knew that Jacobs was disabled.

See Schmidt v.

Safeway Inc., 864 F. Supp. 991, 997 (D. Or. 1994) (“The employer
need only know the underlying facts, not the legal significance
of those facts.”).
Contrary

to

the

AOC’s

contention,

Jacobs

has

produced

affirmative evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude
that she was terminated because of her disability.
53 F.3d at 59.
e-mail

favor

She was fired just three weeks after sending her

disclosing

accommodation.
of

See Ennis,

her

disability

and

requesting

an

Such close temporal proximity weighs heavily in

finding

a

genuine

dispute

as

to

causation.

See

Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 252 F.3d 696, 706 (4th Cir.
2001)

(finding

that

temporal

proximity

genuine dispute to causation).

29

alone

can

create

a

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 30 of 46

We therefore find that a reasonable jury could conclude
that Jacobs has made out each of the elements of a prima facie
case of discriminatory discharge.

4.
Under the familiar McDonnell Douglas framework, the burden
then shifts to the AOC to produce evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason

for

terminating

Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802.
number

of

non-discriminatory

Jacobs.

See

McDonnell

The AOC produced evidence of a

reasons

for

Jacobs’s

termination

including: Jacobs was not “getting it”; she had outbursts and
became angry with her trainer; she slept on the job; and she
failed to follow the appropriate procedure for calling in sick.
For summary judgment purposes, we thus find that the AOC has
satisfied this relatively modest burden.
The burden therefore shifts back to Jacobs to prove that
these

asserted

Sanderson

justifications

Plumbing

Prods.,

are

Inc.,

pretextual.

530

U.S.

133,

Reeves
143

v.

(2000).

Among other methods, she may do so by demonstrating that the
asserted

justifications,

even

if

true,

are

post

rationalizations invented for purposes of litigation.

hoc

Dennis v.

Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr. , Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 647 (4th Cir.
2002).

Jacobs

argues

that

the

AOC’s

proffered

reasons

are

pretextual because: (i) the AOC has offered different rationales
30

Appeal: 13-2212

at

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

different

phases

of

the

Pg: 31 of 46

litigation

and

(ii)

the

AOC’s

evidence is inconsistent and contradictory.
The

fact

justifications

that
at

an

employer

different

times

“has
for

offered
adverse

[an

different
employment

action] is, in and of itself, probative of pretext.”
Roebuck & Co., 243 F.3d at 852–53.

Sears

At the time of termination,

Tucker told Jacobs that she was being fired for not “getting
it,” for being slow, for lying about her ability to do the job,
and for her “propensity for mistakes.”
complaint,

Tucker

put

forward

J.A. 827.

additional

In her EEOC

reasons:

Jacobs

had

“outbursts,” got angry with her trainer, and would disruptively
ask her co-workers how to perform tasks.
Jacobs

filed

claiming

that

suit,

the

Jacobs

AOC

slept

put
on

forward

the

job

J.A. 686.
still

and

more

failed

After
reasons,

to

follow

procedures for calling in sick.
Although
internally

this

constellation

inconsistent,

many

of

of
the

justifications
purported

is

not

justifications

were not raised at the time of termination. Even more striking
is that no one at the AOC documented any of the justifications
(including those raised at the time of termination) in any way.
Moreover, all of the annotations on the e-mail printout (that
Tucker

testified

reflect

her

contemporaneous

account

of

the

reasons for firing Jacobs) concern her disability, use of sick
leave,

and

request

for

accommodation;
31

none

concern

the

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 32 of 46

justifications raised during the course of litigation.

Drawing

all reasonable inferences in favor of Jacobs, we conclude that
the

AOC’s

undocumented

pretextual

and

were

and
not

uncorroborated
the

actual

justifications

reason

for

are

Jacobs’s

termination. 15
In

addition,

substantial

circumstantial

evidence

contradicts Tucker’s testimony that she decided to fire Jacobs
after learning that Jacobs had been sleeping on the job.

See

Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151 (stating that courts need not credit the
moving

party’s

evidence

when

it

impeached by the nonmoving party).

is

either

contradicted

or

First, even though Jacobs’s

alleged sleeping was purportedly central to Tucker’s decision to
fire her, Tucker did not discuss it in the termination meeting
or in responding to the EEOC.
first

time

deposition

during

discovery

Rather, the story emerged for the

testimony

contains

in

this

suit.

numerous

Second,

Tucker’s

inconsistencies.

For

example, she testified about a discussion that purportedly took
place during the termination meeting, but that discussion is
entirely

absent

from

the

unaltered

15

audio

recording

of

that

Jacobs also argues that the AOC’s evidence regarding the
justifications
for
firing
Tucker
is
self-defeating.
Specifically,
she
notes
that
although
all
of
Jacobs’s
supervisors testified that they learned of Jacobs’s performance
issues from co-worker Ashley English, English testified that she
never discussed Jacobs’s performance with them.
We conclude
that English’s testimony creates a genuine dispute of fact
regarding Jacobs’s alleged performance issues.
32

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

meeting.

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 33 of 46

See Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 165 (5th Cir.

2009) (per curiam) (“Summary judgment is not appropriate when
‘questions about the credibility of key witnesses loom large’
and the evidence could permit the trier-of-fact to treat their
testimony

with

‘skeptical

scrutiny.’”

(ellipsis

omitted)

(quoting Thomas v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 233 F.3d 326, 331
(5th Cir. 2000))).
Third,

Radewicz--who

testified

that

she

observed

Jacobs

sleeping at her desk and called Tucker while she was away on
vacation to let her know--also testified that she was coached by
Tucker

regarding

specific

details

morning of her deposition.

16

of

her

testimony

on

the

Fourth and finally, Radewicz’s

testimony is significantly implausible.

Tucker testified that,

while she was on vacation, she asked to be called only in the
event of an emergency and that the only call she received was
from Radewicz.
jury

would

In order to credit Tucker and Radewicz, then, a

have

to

believe

that

the

only

“emergency”

that

occurred in the courthouse during Tucker’s three-week vacation
was

Jacobs’s

purportedly

sleeping

on

the

job.

We

therefore

conclude that Jacobs’s circumstantial evidence is sufficient to

16

Jacobs denies ever sleeping on the job, but has not
produced evidence directly contradicting Radewicz’s testimony
that she called Tucker during Tucker’s vacation.
33

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 34 of 46

create a genuine dispute of fact as to whether she was fired for
sleeping on the job.
In sum, we find that a reasonable jury could conclude that
Jacobs

has

set

out

a

prima

facie

case

of

disability

discrimination and sufficient evidence of pretext to ultimately
prevail on her claim.

The district court thus erred in granting

summary judgment on Jacobs’s disability discrimination claim.

B.
We next consider whether we should affirm summary judgment
on Jacobs’s retaliatory discharge claim.

The ADA provides that

“no

any

person

shall

discriminate

against

individual”

for

engaging in protected opposition or participation activity.
U.S.C. § 12203(a).
she

engaged

in

42

Jacobs alleges that she was fired because
protected

activity;

namely,

requesting

an

accommodation for her social anxiety disorder.
“In order to prevail on a claim of retaliation, a plaintiff
must either offer sufficient direct and indirect evidence of
retaliation, or proceed under a burden-shifting method.”
v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373, 391 (4th Cir. 2001).

Rhoads

A plaintiff need

not show that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See
id.

Whether

a

plaintiff

proceeds

by

direct

evidence

or

McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting, she must show (i) that she
engaged

in

protected

activity
34

and,

(ii) because

of

this,

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

(iii) her

Filed: 03/12/2015

employer

took

an

Pg: 35 of 46

adverse

employment

action

against

her. Id.
The

parties

do

not

elements are satisfied.

dispute

that

the

first

and

third

Jacobs clearly engaged in protected

activity by submitting a request for accommodation; and the AOC
clearly took an adverse employment action by firing her.

As set

forth

as

below,

disputed

issues

of

material

fact

exist

to

causation under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Accordingly,

we

to

Jacobs’s

Jacobs’s

asserted

reverse

the

grant

of

summary

judgment

as

retaliatory discharge claim.

1.
In

assessing

causation,

we

begin

with

direct and indirect evidence of retaliation.

“To avoid summary

judgment, the plaintiff must produce direct evidence of a stated
purpose to discriminate and/or indirect evidence of sufficient
probative force to reflect a genuine issue of material fact.”
Rhoads, 257 F.3d at 391 (quoting Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation
Club, 180 F.3d 598, 607 (4th Cir. 1999)) (brackets and internal
quotation

marks

omitted).

“What

is

required

is

evidence

of

conduct or statements that both reflect directly the alleged
discriminatory attitude and that bear directly on the contested
employment decision.”

Id. at 391–92 (quoting Brinkley, 180 F.3d

at 607).
35

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 36 of 46

First, Jacobs argues that Tucker’s refusal to train her for
positions other than the front counter, when Tucker had allowed
the 29 other deputy clerks to train for positions other than the
front

counter,

is

direct

evidence

that

Jacobs

was

treated

adversely because of her request for an accommodation.
undisputed

that

the

AOC

immediately to new hires.
that

other

deputy

clerks

did

not

provide

such

It is
training

Jacobs does not produce any evidence
of

comparable

training opportunities that she was denied.

tenure

were

given

Accordingly, this

argument is without merit.
Second, Jacobs argues that the actions taken by the AOC
after

she

submitted

her

accommodation

request

constitute

evidence that the AOC reacted to her request with retaliatory
animus.

For example, although her supervisor had granted all

her requests for leave before she sought an accommodation, her
request for leave after seeking the accommodation was denied. 17
Jacobs also cites as direct evidence of retaliatory animus a
letter Tucker wrote to a superior following the termination in
which Tucker said she had reservations about hiring Jacobs due
to her “mousiness.”

J.A. 689.

17

We note that, in addition to serving as evidence of
hostility, the denial of leave can itself be an adverse
employment action compensable under the ADA’s retaliation
provision. Wells v. Gates, 336 F. App’x 378, 383–384 (4th Cir.
2009) (per curiam).
36

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Considering

this

evidence

Pg: 37 of 46

as

a

whole,

we

find

that

no

reasonable jury could conclude on the basis of the purported
direct

and

indirect

evidence

that

Tucker

fired

retaliation for her request for accommodation.

Jacobs

in

Although Jacobs

provides some indirect evidence from which a factfinder might
infer animus, she has produced no direct evidence of retaliatory
(as

opposed

to

discriminatory)

animus.

Tucker’s

notes

and

statements during the termination meeting indicate that she may
have intended to fire Jacobs because she was disabled, but they
do not indicate that she intended to fire Jacobs in retaliation
for requesting an accommodation.

Jacobs’s purported direct and

indirect evidence is insufficient to survive summary judgment.

2.
However,

this

is

Jacobs’s retaliation claim.
survive

summary

judgment

not

the

end

of

our

analysis

of

We also consider whether Jacobs can

under

the

McDonnell

Douglas

burden-

shifting framework.

Under this method of proof, Jacobs “must

show

engaged

(1)

that

[s]he

in

protected

activity;

(2)

that

[her] employer took an adverse action against [her]; and (3)
that a causal connection existed between the adverse activity
and the protected action.”
employer

then

has

the

Haulbrook, 252 F.3d at 706.

burden

‘to

rebut

the

“The

presumption

of

retaliation by articulating a legitimate nonretaliatory reason
37

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

for its actions.’”

Pg: 38 of 46

Rhoads, 257 F.3d at 392 (quoting Beall v.

Abbots Labs., 130 F.3d 614, 619 (4th Cir. 1997)).

The burden

then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered
reason is pretext.

“The plaintiff always bears the ultimate

burden of persuading the trier of fact that she was the victim
of retaliation.”

Id.

Jacobs has established the first two elements of the prima
facie case through undisputed evidence.

The AOC argues that

Jacobs has failed to establish causation because there is “no
evidence”
Jacobs,

that

that

Tucker

Jacobs

knew,

had

Appellees’ Br. at 43.

when

submitted

she
an

decided

to

terminate

accommodation

request.

As we discussed above, the record in

actuality contains ample evidence from which a reasonable jury
could conclude that Tucker learned of Jacobs’s request for an
accommodation before the termination meeting.
II.B.3.
Jacobs

We
was

therefore

terminated

accommodation

from

proceed
just

her

with

three

the

weeks

supervisors.

See supra Part

causation
after

This

inquiry.

requesting
close

an

temporal

proximity is sufficient to establish a disputed issue of fact as
to

the

causation

Haulbrook,
arguably

252

exists

element

F.3d
as

at
to

of

706
. . .

the
(“[A]

prima

facie

contested

[causation],

due

case.

issue
solely

See

of
to

fact
the

proximity in time of [the plaintiff’s] termination on November

38

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 39 of 46

25 and his assertion on November 4 of a right to accommodation
under the ADA.”).
From here, the burden-shifting inquiry proceeds just as it
did with respect to Jacobs’s disability discrimination claim.
For the reasons stated above in Part III.A.4, we find that a
reasonable
sufficient

jury

could

evidence

retaliation claim.

of

conclude
pretext

to

that

Jacobs

has

ultimately

set

prevail

on

out
her

Thus, the district court erred in granting

summary judgment on this claim.

C.
Finally,

we

consider

whether

we

should

affirm

judgment on Jacobs’s failure-to-accommodate claim.

summary

To establish

a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, Jacobs must show:
“(1) that [she] was an individual who had a disability within
the meaning of the statute; (2) that the employer had notice of
[her] disability; (3) that with reasonable accommodation [she]
could

perform

(4) that

the

the

essential

employer

functions

refused

to

make

of

the

such

position;

and

accommodations.”

Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337, 345 (4th Cir. 2013)
(brackets

and

ellipsis

omitted).

For

the

reasons

discussed

above, we find that Jacobs has established a genuine dispute of
fact regarding the first and second elements of the prima facie
case--that is, that she had a disability and that the AOC had
39

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

notice of her disability.

Pg: 40 of 46

As to the fourth element, it is

undisputed that the AOC refused to make an accommodation for
Jacobs.
Could

The only remaining issue concerns the third element:
a

reasonable

jury

find

that

with

a

reasonable

accommodation, Jacobs could perform the essential functions of
the position of deputy clerk?

1.
We

start

by

determining

position of deputy clerk.
are essential.

the

essential

functions

of

the

Not all job requirements or functions

A job function is essential when “the reason the

position exists is to perform that function,” when there aren’t
enough employees available to perform the function, or when the
function is so specialized that someone is hired specifically
because of his or her expertise in performing that function.
C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2).
description

before

29

“[I]f an employer has prepared a written

advertising

or

interviewing

applicants

for

the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the
essential functions of the job.”

42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).

Other

relevant evidence can include “the employer’s judgment as to
which functions are essential,” “the amount of time spent on the
job performing the function,” “the consequences of not requiring
the incumbent to perform the function,” and the work experience

40

Appeal: 13-2212

of

Doc: 43

people

Filed: 03/12/2015

who

hold

the

Pg: 41 of 46

same

or

similar

job.

29

C.F.R.

§ 1630.2(n)(3). 18
We begin with the written job description for the position:
“[D]eputy clerks perform a variety of duties including: working
in

the

typing,

courtroom,
filing,

providing

cash

customer

receipting,

case

service,

entry,

indexing,

file

data

multi-

tasking and the ability to type 35-40 corrected wpm, and various
other tasks.”

J.A. 678.

“[P]roviding customer service” is only

one of the many duties that deputy clerks might perform.
We also consider the undisputed evidence in the record.
The AOC employed 30 deputy clerks.
regularly at the front counter.

Of these, only four worked
The others performed various

tasks, including intake, filing, data entry, mailing documents,
bookkeeping, and serving as a courtroom clerk.

Most new deputy

clerks started at the front counter, purportedly because the
front

counter

is

where

knowledge of the office.”

a

new

employee

J.A. 434.

can

“gain

the

most

However, some new deputy

clerks started in filing and were permitted to perform that task
without first training at the front counter.

See J.A. 274 (“The

best two places to start are filing and the front counter.”).
Deputy clerks were trained for other roles based on seniority.

18

Because the parties agree that the regulations are
instructive, we again assume their reasonableness and decline to
determine what level of deference, if any, they are due.
41

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 42 of 46

J.A. 259 (“I worked at the front counter five days a week for
over one year before a new deputy clerk was hired and I was
moved off the front counter . . . .”).
The record contains ample evidence from which a reasonable
jury could conclude that working at the front counter was not an
essential function of the position of deputy clerk.
description

does

not

indicate

that

all

expected to work at the front counter.

deputy

The job

clerks

were

Fewer than 15% of the

office’s deputy clerks worked behind the front counter, and some
deputy clerks never performed this task.

Because most of the

deputy clerks were trained to work behind the front counter,
many

employees

were

available

to

perform

that

function.

Finally, the AOC has produced no evidence that mastery of the
front

desk

was

essential

or

that

Jacobs’s

no

longer

working

behind the front counter would negatively impact the office.

We

therefore find that Jacobs has established a genuine issue of
fact regarding whether working behind the front counter is an
essential function of the position of deputy clerk.

2.
We

now

accommodate:

turn

to

whether,

the

heart

with

a

of

a

reasonable

claim

for

failure

accommodation,

to

Jacobs

could perform the essential functions of the position of deputy
clerk.

Wilson, 717 F.3d at 345.
42

This inquiry proceeds in two

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

steps.
Jacobs

Filed: 03/12/2015

First,

was

the

reasonable?

Pg: 43 of 46

specific

Second,

accommodation

had

the

AOC

requested
granted

by
the

accommodation, could Jacobs perform the essential functions of
the position?
A

Id.

reasonable

accommodation

is

one

that

“enables

[a

qualified] individual with a disability . . . to perform the
essential

functions

§ 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

of

[a]

position.”

29

C.F.R.

The statute expressly contemplates that a

reasonable accommodation may require “job restructuring.”
U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B).

42

Jacobs’s proposed accommodation was to

work fewer days at the counter and more days microfilming or
performing

other

deputy

clerk

tasks.

This

proposed

accommodation did not require the AOC to increase the workload
of Jacobs’s coworkers; Jacobs merely asked that her employer
change

which

deputy

clerk

was

assigned

to

which

task.

Cf.

Crabill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 423 F. App’x 314,
323 (4th Cir. 2011) (noting that “an accommodation that would
require other employees to work harder is unreasonable”). 19

19

A

That Jacobs’s request would have necessitated a departure
from the office’s informal seniority system is of no moment.
All deputy clerks shared a common job title and description. In
the absence of evidence of a formal seniority policy, that
Jacobs’s proposed accommodation would require shifting a coworker with more seniority to a less desirable task does not
render it inherently unreasonable. Cf. EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp.,
237 F.3d 349, 354–355 (4th Cir. 2001) (where company’s formal
seniority policy which had been in place for 30 years required
43

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 44 of 46

reasonable jury could therefore conclude that Jacobs’s requested
accommodation was reasonable.
An

employer

is

not

required

to

grant

even

a

reasonable

accommodation unless it would enable the employee to perform all
of the essential functions of her position.

Jacobs argues that

a transfer away from the front desk would eliminate the cause of
her social anxiety--having to answer questions from strangers
face-to-face

all

day--and

reasonable expectations.

enable

her

to

meet

her

employer’s

The AOC argues that Jacobs was a poor

performer and therefore would have been unable to perform the
essential functions of the position even with the accommodation.
As we found above, there is a genuine dispute of fact as to
whether Jacobs was a poor performer.

Even assuming that Jacobs

actually microfilmed too slowly and pestered her coworkers by
asking for their help, a reasonable jury could conclude that
these

behaviors

were

manifestations

of

Jacobs’s

performance

anxiety and were unlikely to reemerge had the accommodation been
granted.

There

is

no

uncontradicted

evidence

that

Jacobs’s

social anxiety disorder interferes with her ability to file or
perform other administrative tasks.

We therefore conclude that

Jacobs has established a genuine dispute as to whether, with a

an employee to switch to a different shift, it was reasonable
for the company to enforce the seniority policy).
44

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 45 of 46

reasonable accommodation, she could have performed all of the
essential functions of the position of deputy clerk.

3.
The ADA imposes upon employers a good-faith duty “to engage
[with their employees] in an interactive process to identify a
reasonable accommodation.”

Wilson, 717 F.3d at 346.

This duty

is triggered when an employee communicates her disability and
desire

for

an

accommodation--even

if

the

employee

identify a specific, reasonable accommodation.
employer

will

interactive

the

allow

position.

be

process

demonstrate
would

not

her
Id.

liable
if

the

existence
to
at

failure

employee

of

a

perform
347;

for

see

to

also

engage

Deily

in

the

fails

to

accommodation

essential

functions

v.

to

However, an

ultimately

reasonable

the

Id.

fails

Waste

that

of

Mgmt.

the
of

Allentown, 55 F. App’x 605, 607 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Shapiro
v. Twp. of Lakewood, 292 F.3d 356, 360 (3d Cir. 2002)). Two of
our

sister

reasonable

circuits

have

accommodation

in

held

that

failure

a

meeting

in

to

which

“discuss
the

a

employer

takes an adverse employment action” against a disabled employee
is evidence of bad faith.

Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d

1025,

(citing

1040

(6th

Cir.

2014)

EEOC

v.

Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 622 (5th Cir. 2009)).

45

Chevron

Phillips

Appeal: 13-2212

Doc: 43

It
Kennedy,

is

undisputed

Excell,

accommodation
office.

Filed: 03/12/2015

and

request

Both

that

Pg: 46 of 46

each

of

Jacobs’s

Griffin--refused
with

Radewicz

her

and

until

Tucker

to

Tucker

supervisors--

discuss

Jacobs’s

returned

testified

that

to

the

Jacobs’s

supervisors had authority to reassign employees to other tasks
(and

therefore

Jacobs).

to

engage

in

the

interactive

process

with

The morning that Tucker returned to the office after a

three-week absence, she called Jacobs to her office and fired
her without first discussing her accommodation request.

From

these facts, a reasonable jury could easily conclude that the
AOC acted in bad faith by failing to engage in the interactive
process with Jacobs.
We

therefore

conclude

that

summary

judgment

is

not

warranted on Jacobs’s failure to accommodate claim.

IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse in part the district
court’s

order

granting

summary

judgment

against

Jacobs

and

remand to the district court for trial of her ADA disability
discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate claims.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED FOR TRIAL

46