Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Morris-Huse v. GEICO

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

September 26, 2018, Decided

No. 18-10660 Non-Argument Calendar

Opinion

 [*266]  PER CURIAM:

Susan Morris-Huse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, Government Employees Insurance Company ("GEICO"), in her failure-to-accommodate suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On appeal, Morris-Huse argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of GEICO because a jury could have concluded that GEICO did not provide her with reasonable accommodations for her Meniere's disease under the ADA. Specifically, she argues that GEICO failed to accommodate her when it refused to allow her to work from home—or to revert to another job position that would allow her to work from home—when she experienced episodes of vertigo as a result of her disease. After careful review, we hold that the district court [**2]  did not err in granting summary judgment on Morris-Huse's claim.

The facts are known to the parties; we do not repeat them here except as necessary.

To begin, ] we review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008). ] Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In making this assessment, we "must view all the evidence and all factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and must resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-movant." Rioux, 520 F.3d at 1274 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

] The ADA provides that an employer shall not discriminate against a qualified employee based on that employee's disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). As relevant to this case, "[a]n employer's failure to make reasonable accommodation for an otherwise qualified disabled employee constitutes discrimination under the ADA." D'Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on an employer's failure to accommodate, an employee must show (1) that she has a disability, (2) that she is a "qualified individual," [**3]  and (3) that her employer unlawfully discriminated against her because of her disability. See id. at 1226.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

748 Fed. Appx. 264 *; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27431 **

SUSAN MORRIS-HUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEICO, Defendant-Appellee.

Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cv-01353-CEH-AEP.

Morris-Huse v. Geico, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14284 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2018)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

accommodation, disability, essential function, reasonable accommodation, summary judgment, district court

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Legal Entitlement, Materiality of Facts, Business & Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations, Labor & Employment Law, Evidence, Employee Burdens of Proof, Scope & Definitions, Qualified Individuals With Disabilities