![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division
April 30, 2018, Decided; April 30, 2018, Filed
Case No. 1:17-cv-921
At issue on summary judgment in this disability discrimination case is whether the undisputed record facts reflect that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's reasonable accommodation and discharge claims. Specifically, plaintiff claims (i) that defendant failed to accommodate her disability by denying plaintiff the opportunity to bring her dog, Mr. B, to work, and (ii) that she was terminated because of her disability. Defendant counters, arguing that plaintiff's preferred accommodation was not reasonable in light of the allergy issues created by Mr. B's presence in the workplace, and that defendant offered other reasonable alternatives as part of the ADA mandated interactive process, such as substituting a hypoallergenic dog for Mr. B or working the day shift, both of which plaintiff refused to consider. Defendant also contends that plaintiff was discharged [*2] not because of any disability, but because a psychologist evaluation concluded that she was not psychologically suited for her position as a 911 dispatcher.
The matter has been fully briefed and argued and is now ripe for disposition.
The entry of summary judgment is appropriate only where there are no genuine disputes of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The following statement of undisputed material facts is based on the defendant's statement of undisputed material facts and plaintiff's response.1 The remainder of the record and the parties' statements of additional facts were also scoured for facts that might be viewed as in conflict with the facts stated here.
• Defendant, the City of Fairfax, employed plaintiff, Stefanie Maubach, as a dispatcher. Plaintiff's responsibilities including answering emergency calls, receiving and transmitting radio and telephone messages, and dispatching police and other emergency personnel when needed. Plaintiff worked the night shift with another dispatcher. Lt. Martin Nachtman (Nachtman) supervised plaintiff.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73815 *; 2018 WL 2018552
STEFANIE MAUBACH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FAIRFAX, Defendant.
accommodation, dispatcher, personnel director, disability, reasonable accommodation, interactive process, dog, summary judgment, night shift, animal, day shift, psychological, emotional support, good faith, undisputed, allergies, terminated, genuine, allergic reaction, return to work, second opinion, undue hardship, material fact, panic attack, hypoallergenic, psychologist, employees