Kenneth Fields v. Clifton T. Perkins Hospital

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-03254-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999595339].. [14-1671]

Appeal: 14-1671

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1671

KENNETH DUSHAUN FIELDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLIFTON T. PERKINS HOSPITAL,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JOSHUA M. SHARFSTEIN,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-03254-RDB)

Submitted:

March 31, 2015

Decided:

June 3, 2015

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce M. Luchansky, LUCHANSKY LAW, Towson, Maryland, for
Appellant.
Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland,
Christopher A. Gozdor, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-1671

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1671

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth DuShaun Fields appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Defendant, Clifton T. Perkins
Hospital

(“Hospital”),

on

his

claim

for

disability

discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29
U.S.C.A. § 794.

Fields claimed that the Hospital failed to

provide him a reasonable accommodation by not reassigning him to
a position in the minimum-security wing of the facility where he
worked.

The district court concluded that Fields failed to meet

his burden to present sufficient evidence that such a position
was available at the relevant time or that offering Fields such
a position would have been reasonable.

We affirm.

“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo.”

Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 775 F.3d 202, 207

(4th Cir. 2014).

Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
56(a).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact

exists, we “constru[e] the evidence in the light most favorable
to

.

.

.

the

non-movant

inferences in [his] favor.”

.

.

.

[and]

draw

all

reasonable

Walker, 775 F.3d at 207.

We will

uphold a grant of summary judgment unless we conclude that “a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party

3

Appeal: 14-1671

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/03/2015

on the evidence presented.”

Pg: 4 of 6

Honor v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton,

Inc., 383 F.3d 180, 185 (4th Cir. 2004).
To

establish

a

claim

under

the

Rehabilitation

Act

for

failure to make reasonable accommodations, a plaintiff must show
that (1) he suffers a disability; (2) his employer had notice of
the

disability;

otherwise

(3) with

qualified

to

reasonable

perform

the

accommodations,

is

position

employment

he

in

question; and (4) his employer refused to make such reasonable
accommodations.

See Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337,

345 (4th Cir. 2013); 1 Sanchez v. Vilsack, 695 F.3d 1174, 1177
(10th

Cir.

2012).

“[R]easonable

accommodation

may

include

reassignment to a vacant position.”

EEOC v. Stowe-Pharr Mills,

Inc.,

2000)

216

F.3d

373,

377

(4th

Cir.

(internal

quotation

marks and ellipsis omitted); accord Sanchez, 695 F.3d at 1180.
However, if there is no vacant position for which the plaintiff
qualifies,

then

constitute

a

accommodate
reassignment.

failure

breach

the

of

to

reassign

the

employee’s

the

employer’s

disability,

employee
duty

if

to

does

not

reasonably

possible,

through

See Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d

444, 457 (6th Cir. 2004); Winfrey v. City of Chi., 259 F.3d 610,
1

Wilson is a case arising under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012). “To
the extent possible, we construe the ADA and Rehabilitation Act
to impose similar requirements.”
Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ.
Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 461 (4th Cir. 2012).

4

Appeal: 14-1671

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/03/2015

618 (7th Cir. 2001).

Pg: 5 of 6

“It is the plaintiff’s burden to show that

a vacant position exists for which []he was qualified.”

Jackson

v. City of Chi., 414 F.3d 806, 813 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation

marks

omitted);

see

also

McBride

v.

BIC

Consumer

Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 2009).
Having

reviewed

the

record

on

appeal,

we

conclude

that

Fields presented insufficient evidence that a vacant position at
the Hospital was available and no evidence that he was qualified
for

the

positions

he

sought.

Therefore,

the

district

court

correctly determined that Fields failed to meet his burden of
production

as

to

the

existence

of

a

vacant

position

at

the

Hospital for which he was qualified, and properly concluded that
no genuine dispute remained as to whether the Hospital failed to
offer Fields a reasonable accommodation.
the

district

court’s

order

granting

Accordingly, we affirm

summary

judgment

to

the

Hospital. 2

2

Fields also claimed that the Hospital violated the
Rehabilitation Act by failing to engage with him in an
interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation. The
district court correctly determined that such a claim would fail
unless Fields identified a reasonable accommodation that would
have been possible but for the Hospital’s failure to engage in
an interactive process.
See Wilson, 717 F.3d at 347.
Because
Fields failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that
a reasonable accommodation was possible, we conclude that the
district court correctly granted the Hospital summary judgment
on this claim as well.

5

Appeal: 14-1671

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/03/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6