A plaintiff who lost her job as store manager could not prove disability discrimination because her knee condition prevented her from performing physical tasks that were essential job functions according to the employer’s official written description of her position, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The plaintiff employee argued that certain tasks the defendant employer claimed were crucial to the store manager role could be either delegated to other store personnel or altogether disregarded.

But the 1st Circuit disagreed.

“The fact that certain tasks associated with a particular position can be either reduced, reassigned, or reallocated to a subordinate does not, by itself, render them non-essential to the position they were associated to in the first place,” Judge Juan R. Torruella wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. “Even if [the plaintiff] could perform some of the tasks associated with the essential functions of the job, her physical limitations prevented her from executing a great too many others.”

The 27-page decision is Jones v. Walgreen Co., et al.

Joshua Karsh of Chicago represented the plaintiff. Gregory A. Manousos of Boston defended the employer.

In and out of work

Plaintiff Pamela Jones worked for defendant Walgreen Co. for approximately 20 years, starting in 1986. During most of her tenure, she served as a store manager.

In January 2004, the plaintiff slipped on ice in front of a Walgreens office, injuring her knee. She was on medical leave until May, recovering from her injuries.

The plaintiff again was out of work in June to have surgery on her knee.

In March 2005, while still on leave, the plaintiff wrote district manager Jerry Telson to inform him that she hoped to return to work with “reasonable accommodations.” The letter was soon followed by another, dated April 14, whereby the plaintiff provided a report from her orthopedist, Dr. Martin Luber, which explained that Jones could only lift weights under 25 pounds and that she was limited to minimal bending, stooping and squatting.

In October, Walgreens offered the plaintiff a position as store manager at a different location. The plaintiff accepted the offer but warned Telson in an email that she could not climb ladders, lift objects that weighed more than 20 pounds or work shifts longer than eight hours a day.

In addition, the plaintiff notified Telson that her approach as store manager would be to delegate, to the extent possible, the physical obligations of store operations to other staff members.

In September 2006, however, Telson asked the plaintiff to provide updated medical information, which she did later that month. In the updated information, Dr. Luber tendered his medical opinion that Jones had several permanent physical restrictions.

Shortly after receiving the updated information, Telson provided the plaintiff with a notice of termination, which explained that her employment with Walgreens was being terminated effective immediately, as it was “clear” that she could “no longer perform the essential functions of [her] position as Store Manager.”

The plaintiff responded by filing suit in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts claiming disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Judge Michael A. Ponsor awarded the defendant employer summary judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could find in the plaintiff’s favor.

Physical limitations

“The evidence of record demonstrates that in fulfilling her duties, a Walgreens Store Manager spends an appreciable amount of time performing several tasks of a physical nature,” Torruella observed. “[U]ndisputed evidence in the record persuades us that the listed responsibilities of the Store Manager position cannot be properly read as an exhaustive list of all the tasks required of an employee in that role and establishes that the Store Manager job is, in indispensable part, an on-your-feet post requiring routine physical activity.”

The plaintiff nevertheless claimed that her most recent performance review made no mention of her work having been affected by physical limitations or inability to perform any physical tasks.

She reasoned that a jury could have feasibly relied on her past performance of the job to determine that the physical tasks that Walgreens claimed were essential to the store manager position were unimportant or marginal.

“[W]hatever Walgreens’ understanding of Jones’s limitations or restrictions was during this period, it certainly changed when Walgreens received supplementary information from Dr. Luber in September 2006,” Torruella responded.

“It was only thereafter that Walgreens acted to terminate Jones’s employment,” the judge said. “Thus, a performance review that was completed approximately five months before Walgreens received this updated medical information is immaterial to answering the question of whether Jones could perform the essential functions of her job as of the date she was terminated.”

The plaintiff also brought up the fact that she had been working as store manager for close to a year following her initial knee surgery before receiving her notice of termination. Thus, she argued, her past ability to perform the job without issue supported an inference that she could effectively undertake the essential functions of the store manager role.

“Even if we assume that Jones was fully capable of performing the essential functions of her job prior to September 2006, the record amply supports the district court’s determination that competent evidence foreclosed the same conclusion after that date,” Torruella said. “Indeed, Walgreens is on firm ground when it argues that whatever its understanding of Jones’s physical restrictions was, that understanding was altered in September 2006 when it first gleaned the full scope of Jones’s physical limitations.”