Felicia Scroggins v. City of Shreveport, Louisiana

The Americans with Disabilities Act defines a “qualified individual” by reference to whether the em­ ployee, “with or without reasonable accommodation,” can perform the essential functions of the employment position. 42 U. S. C. §12111(8). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires courts at summary judg­ ment to view the evidence and draw reasonable infer­ ences in favor of the nonmoving party. Petitioner had returned to work and was actually performing assigned limited-duty work when Re­ spondent terminated her employment. The district court nevertheless held that she was not a “qualified individual,” relying substantially upon her historical absences and predictions concerning her ability to maintain regular attendance. The Fifth Circuit af­ firmed in a one-page unpublished opinion stating only that it found “no reversible error.” The questions presented are:

1. Whether, under 42 U. S. C. §12111(8), an em­ ployee who has returned to work and is actually per­ forming assigned duties under an existing accommo­ dation may be held unqualified as a matter of law based principally upon historical absenteeism and predictions concerning future attendance, without permitting a factfinder to consider evidence of the em­ ployee’s actual work status, reasonable accommoda­ tion, and present ability to work.

2. Whether summary judgment conflicts with this Court’s decisions in Tolan v. Cotton,, Reeves v. Sand­ erson Plumbing Products, Inc., and Anderson v. Lib­ erty Lobby, Inc., when a court resolves competing in­ ferences concerning qualification, accommodation, attendance, and pretext against the nonmoving em­ ployee rather than allowing a jury to resolve genuine disputes of material fact.