Plaintiff Jill Ann Rogers sued her former employer, Defendant Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, as representative of the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (BPU), in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging failure-to-accommodate, discrimination, and harassment/hostile work environment claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Rogers began working for BPU in 2003 and was promoted to Assistant Purchasing Agent in 2013. In 2016, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS). From 2017 to 2021, she served as Acting Purchasing Director while maintaining her Assistant Purchasing Agent role. During her employment, Rogers requested various accommodations related to parking access and building entry, which BPU addressed through multiple parking space relocations and installation of automatic doors.
In 2020, Rogers applied for the permanent Director of Purchasing position but was not selected. BPU instead hired Becky Aldinger, who had extensive supply chain experience and a master’s degree. In February 2021, Rogers began working remotely due to her compromised immune system and upcoming chemotherapy treatment. When BPU requested she return to in-person work in March 2021, Rogers requested indefinite remote work accommodation, which BPU denied. She subsequently took FMLA leave and then long-term disability.
Legal Analysis
Administrative Exhaustion: The court found Rogers failed to exhaust her harassment claims but properly exhausted her failure-to-promote claim. The court determined her failure-to-accommodate claims regarding building access were time-barred, while her remote work accommodation claim was properly exhausted.
Harassment Claim: The court held Rogers failed to administratively exhaust her harassment claims regarding both facility access issues and supervisor comments.
Failure-to-Accommodate Claims: The court analyzed two accommodation claims: building access and remote work. It found the building access claims were both time-barred and failed on the merits because BPU did accommodate Rogers’ requests. On the remote work claim, the court determined indefinite remote work was not a reasonable accommodation given BPU’s business needs and the essential functions of Rogers’ position.
Discrimination Claim: The court analyzed Rogers’ failure-to-promote claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework and found that while she established a prima facie case, BPU articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring Aldinger, and Rogers failed to show these reasons were pretextual.
The court granted summary judgment to BPU on all claims.
Schrag on Law 