HAMILTON v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-10No. No. 19-35973

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of GlaxoSmithKline on all claims brought by Hamilton.

Sara Hamilton appealed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of her employer, GlaxoSmithKline. The appellate court reviewed the case without deference to the trial court's reasoning and upheld the judgment across all of Hamilton's claims.

The court found that a medical examination proposed by the company was job-related and necessary for business purposes, and Hamilton suffered no adverse consequences for declining it. When evaluating Hamilton's requests for workplace accommodations such as a new manager or outside mediator, the court determined these were not reasonable given her job circumstances. The company had instead offered internal counseling and mediation and engaged in good-faith discussions about possible solutions. Hamilton's own admission that she would not accept alternative accommodations supported the finding that the company's efforts were sufficient.

Regarding Hamilton's termination claim, the court concluded she was not qualified to continue in her position because she had violated the company's attendance policy. The company had offered a reasonable accommodation through internal mediation. Finally, the court found no credible evidence of retaliation when the company terminated Hamilton for the attendance violation after she filed a complaint with the state human rights bureau.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a proposed medical examination violated disability rights laws
Whether the employer's accommodations were adequate under disability law
Whether the employee was qualified to continue in her position
Whether the employee's termination constituted unlawful retaliation

Procedural posture

Hamilton appealed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Sara Hamilton appeals the entry of summary judgment for Defendant GlaxoSmithKline, LLC on all of her claims. Reviewing de novo, King v. County of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 556 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm.

1. The proposed medical examination was job-related and consistent with business necessity and therefore did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Montana Human Rights Act. Yin v. California, 95 F.3d 864, 867–68 (9th Cir. 1996). But in any case, the examination was not in fact mandatory, as Plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action due to her refusal to participate. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs claims that she was subjected to an unlawful medical examination.

2. Plaintiffs requested accommodations—a new manager or an outside mediator—were not “reasonable” given the factual context of her position within the company. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 401, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 152 L.Ed.2d 589 (2002). Defendant communicated extensively with Plaintiff and offered her a practical alternative: internal counseling and mediation. Humphrey v. Meml Hosps. Assn, 239 F.3d 1128, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2001). Other accommodations likely would have been futile; Plaintiff conceded that she would not have entertained alternative accommodations because what she wanted was a new manager. Defendants efforts reflect a good faith engagement in the interactive process. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The interactive process requires: (1) direct communication between the employer and employee to explore in good faith the possible accommodations; (2) consideration of the employees request; and (3) offering an accommodation that is reasonable and effective.”).

3. The district court did not err by entering summary judgment in Defendants favor on Plaintiffs discriminatory termination claims. Plaintiff was not a “qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job” given her violation of Defendants attendance policy. Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1237–38 (9th Cir. 2012). And Defendant had not failed to accommodate Plaintiff because it offered her a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances: internal mediation. Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1139.

4. There is no “specific and substantial” evidence of pretext to support Plaintiffs retaliation claims. Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001). The record evidence fails to show that “a discriminatory reason more likely motivated [Defendant] or ․ that [Defendants] proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the district court did not err by entering judgment on Plaintiffs claim that, after she filed her claims with the Montana Human Rights Bureau, Defendant retaliated by terminating her employment for violation of the attendance policy.

AFFIRMED.