On July 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Judges Niemeyer, Davis, and Keenan) issued a per curiam decision unanimously affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Giant of Maryland LLC (Giant) on a current employee's claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The employee claimed that Giant failed to reasonably accommodate his alleged disability of diabetes by transferring him to a Pharmacy Manager role, with no reduction in pay, when the DMV suspended his driver's license for at least six months in August 2005. At that time, the employee held a Pharmacy Supervisor role, which required him to spend substantial time driving between pharmacy locations. The employee also claimed that Giant failed to reasonably accommodate his alleged disability in January 2006 by refusing to promote him to Pharmacy Supervisor after his driver's license was reinstated and his podiatrist requested the position change based on the employee's risk of diabetic foot problems.
The trial court held that Giant was entitled to summary judgment because the employee did not have a disability that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities in August 2005. The trial court also held that Giant was entitled to summary judgment because Giant had no legal obligation to "bump" another employee in order to return the employee to his former position and the employee did not pursue any accommodation to assist him in performing his duties as a Pharmacy Manager.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the arguments advanced by Venable and adopted by the trial court, finding that the employee had not presented probative evidence that he was disabled under the ADA in August 2005 or that Giant denied him a reasonable accommodation in January 2006 because he was not legally entitled to return to his former position and he never requested any accommodation in his current position.
Lesley Pate Marlin argued the case on behalf of Giant, and she wrote Giant's brief with assistance from Robert G. Ames.
The employee claimed that Giant failed to reasonably accommodate his alleged disability of diabetes by transferring him to a Pharmacy Manager role, with no reduction in pay, when the DMV suspended his driver's license for at least six months in August 2005. At that time, the employee held a Pharmacy Supervisor role, which required him to spend substantial time driving between pharmacy locations. The employee also claimed that Giant failed to reasonably accommodate his alleged disability in January 2006 by refusing to promote him to Pharmacy Supervisor after his driver's license was reinstated and his podiatrist requested the position change based on the employee's risk of diabetic foot problems.
The trial court held that Giant was entitled to summary judgment because the employee did not have a disability that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities in August 2005. The trial court also held that Giant was entitled to summary judgment because Giant had no legal obligation to "bump" another employee in order to return the employee to his former position and the employee did not pursue any accommodation to assist him in performing his duties as a Pharmacy Manager.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the arguments advanced by Venable and adopted by the trial court, finding that the employee had not presented probative evidence that he was disabled under the ADA in August 2005 or that Giant denied him a reasonable accommodation in January 2006 because he was not legally entitled to return to his former position and he never requested any accommodation in his current position.
Lesley Pate Marlin argued the case on behalf of Giant, and she wrote Giant's brief with assistance from Robert G. Ames.