Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc.

17 Citing briefs

  1. Burnette v. Collins Restaurant Group, Inc.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed April 6, 2017

    Failure to provide a reasonable accommodation is unlawful discrimination because of a disability. See Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1255. It is Plaintiff’s burden to identify an accommodation and demonstrate that the accommodation allows her to perform the essential functions of the job.

  2. Robinson v. Michelin North America, Inc.(CONSENT)

    BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 12, 2018

    Case 1:16-cv-00656-SRW Document 23 Filed 01/12/18 Page 38 of 44 36 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, ADEA, or Title VII, Robinson must show: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal link between the adverse action and her protected expression. See, e.g., Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1260.15 In this instance, Robinson cannot establish the requisite causation element.

  3. Pyzynski v. Thomas & Betts Corp.

    MOTION for summary judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

    Filed November 1, 2017

    Plaintiffs claim fails because there was no reasonable accommodation T&B could have provided. Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1261. The court in Lucas held the plaintiff "contends [the employer] took adverse action against him by failing to reasonably accommodate him, by refusing to maintain him on light duty work, and by failing to engage him in the interactive process.

  4. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. The Colonial BancGroup, Inc.

    BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Hearing re Order on Motion to Strike, 57 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 58 Judgment,,, 59 Order,

    Filed January 16, 2012

    Accordingly, the Court should grant a rehearing and, following such a rehearing, vacate the District Court Orders and enter orders affirming the Bankruptcy Court's orders.38 If the Court does not vacate the District Court Orders and enter an affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court's orders, the Debtor respectfully requests that the entire matter be remanded to the Bankruptcy Court to consider all of the issues, including those raised by the FDIC-Receiver for the first time on appeal and the evidence in support or opposition thereof as well as 38 Although the Bankruptcy Court's decision addressed only the arguments raised by the FDIC-Receiver below, this Court can affirm the Bankruptcy Court's ruling on any legal grounds, regardless of the grounds addressed, relied upon, or rejected by the Bankruptcy Court in reaching its decision. Lucas v. W. W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) ("We need not decide whether the district court properly resolved that issue if there is another basis for affirming its judgment, because we may affirm its judgment 'on any ground that finds support in the record.'") (internal citations omitted).

  5. Richardson v. Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC (CONSENT)

    BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 15, 2017

    To state a prima facie claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is a qualified individual, meaning able to perform the essential functions of the job; and (3) he was discriminated against because of his disability by way of the defendant's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. See Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001). It is axiomatic in a failure to accommodate claim that the decisionmaker must be aware the of the employee's physical or mental limitations.

  6. Pyzynski v. Thomas & Betts Corp.

    RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for summary judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

    Filed November 27, 2017

    Unlike the Plaintiff in Anderson v. Embarq/Spring, 379 F. App'x 924, 926-28 (11th Cir. 2010), Ricky’s job was not a distribution center person whose core function was to lift boxes. In Lucas v. W. W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, at 1260 (11th Cir. 2001), the Plaintiff was allowed a light duty assignment until he could interview for prospective positions. In Lucas, the Court writes, “The difference between the accommodation that is required and the transformation that is not, is the difference between saddling a camel and removing its hump.”

  7. Pyzynski v. Thomas & Betts Corp.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for summary judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

    Filed November 15, 2017

    Unlike the Plaintiff in Anderson v. Embarq/Spring, 379 F. App'x 924, 926-28 (11th Cir. 2010), Ricky’s job was not a distribution center person whose core function was to lift boxes. In Lucas v. W. W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, at 1260 (11th Cir. 2001), the Plaintiff was allowed a light duty assignment until he could interview for prospective positions. In Lucas, the Court writes, “The difference between the accommodation that is required and the transformation that is not, is the difference between saddling a camel and removing its hump.”

  8. Danielle-Diserafino v. District School Board of Collier County, Florida

    MOTION for summary judgment

    Filed June 30, 2017

    The burden to establish that she made sufficient accommodation requests remains with the Plaintiff at all times. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001). In this case, Plaintiff admits that she filed her Charge on September 16, 2010.

  9. Mcguire v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

    MOTION for summary judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

    Filed May 4, 2017

    Plaintiff has the burden of identifying the accommodation he seeks, and demonstrating that the accommodation would have allowed him to perform his job’s essential functions. See Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255-57 (11th Cir. 2001). 7 Plaintiff did not allege a failure to accommodate claim in any of his EEOC Charges, or expressly in any of his Complaints, including his Second Amended Complaint.

  10. Hoskins v. City of Atlanta

    MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support

    Filed March 30, 2017

    An accommodation is both “reasonable” and required by the ADA only if it enables Plaintiff to perform the essential functions of his job. Knowles v. Sheriff, 460 Fed. App’x 833, 835 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001)). “An accommodation that does not enable Case 1:15-cv-00508-AT-CMS Document 59 Filed 03/30/17 Page 10 of 23 11 the employee to perform an essential function of his position is facially unreasonable and is not required by the ADA.”