Warner v. Aurora Public Schools

Filing 43

ORDER Denying 34 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/10/15. (ktera)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 14-cv-02359-RPM ANN WARNER PLAINTIFF, v. AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DEFENDANT. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Aurora Public Schools (“APS”) moves for summary judgment on plaintiff Ann Warner’s claim of an intentional violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. Defendant argues that Warner cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination under that statute because she is not qualified, with or without an accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the APS paraeducator job from which she was terminated. APS argues that the ability to lift and/or move up to 50 pounds is an “essential function” of an APS paraeducator’s job duties. It is undisputed that Warner has permanent physical restrictions prohibiting her from lifting and/or moving more than 15 pounds with both arms together or more than five pounds using just her right arm. Accordingly, APS contends that Warner is not qualified for the position of an APS paraeducator. Warner argues that the ability to lift and/or move up to 50 pounds is not an essential function of an 1 APS paraeducator’s job duties and that she could fulfill all of her duties as an APS paraeducator with her restrictions. APS challenges Warner’s qualifications solely on the basis of Warner’s inability to lift and/or move up to 50 pounds. Therefore, the crux of the summary judgment motion is whether the ability to lift and/or move up to 50 pounds is an essential function of the position of an APS paraeducator. Determining whether a particular activity is an essential function of an employment position is a factual inquiry. Davidson v. Am. Online, Inc., 337 F.3d 1179, 1191 (10th Cir. 2003). On the presented facts, a reasonable jury could determine that the ability to lift and/or move up to 50 pounds is not an essential function of an APS paraeducator’s job duties. IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 34, is DENIED. DATED: November 10, 2015 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch ______________________ Richard P. Matsch Senior District Judge 2

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?