Plaintiff Malic Simpson sued defendant American Fidelity Assurance Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma raising claims of discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. Before the court is Defendant American Fidelity Assurance Company’s motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Simpson worked as a Senior Document Management Technician in AFA’s Claims Team within the Document Management Division. Her job involved sorting, scanning, and digitally indexing incoming claims for benefits and insurance premium checks. The Claims Team consisted of approximately seven document technicians supervised by team lead Sherika Luper, with Renee Fountain supervising the entire Document Management Division.
Simpson has a back and neck impairment that required surgeries in 2021 and 2022. In 2021, she requested accommodation for a ten-pound lifting restriction, which AFA informally accommodated with Fountain responding that this “should not be a problem” and advising Simpson to not let her paper piles get too heavy. After her second surgery, Simpson was on medical leave from mid-December 2022 to mid-March 2023.
When Simpson returned to work in March 2023, she initially had no work restrictions. In May 2023, she requested not to be assigned certain tasks and offered to provide a medical note. On June 29, 2023, Simpson formally requested accommodation through HR, providing a physician’s form suggesting she be unable to lift, push, pull, or carry over five pounds for one year.
Upon receiving the accommodation request, Fountain immediately responded that the restriction would cause hardship and Simpson would not be able to perform 70% of her job. AFA placed Simpson on administrative leave while considering her request. The HR team worked with Luper and Fountain to create documentation outlining why Simpson could not perform her duties with the restriction, but did not involve Simpson in this process.
On July 12, 2023, AFA terminated Simpson’s employment after determining it could not reasonably accommodate her lifting restriction. An HR employee testified that the decision to terminate had already been made before the meeting with Simpson.
Evidentiary Disputes
AFA objected to Simpson’s affidavit as conclusory and self-serving, but the court found the affidavit contained specific facts within her personal knowledge that were consistent with deposition testimony and therefore admissible.
The parties disputed the essential functions of Simpson’s position. AFA characterized it as a physically active, manual-labor job where nearly every activity requires handling batches of paper weighing more than five pounds. Simpson disputed this, contending most work involved sitting at a desk performing computer tasks, and that many job functions did not require lifting over five pounds.
Legal Analysis
Failure to Accommodate Claim
The court applied a modified burden-shifting framework requiring Simpson to show she was disabled, otherwise qualified, requested a plausibly reasonable accommodation, and that AFA refused to provide accommodations. The court found the first and fourth elements undisputed, focusing analysis on whether Simpson was otherwise qualified and requested reasonable accommodation.
Essential Function: AFA argued Simpson was not qualified because lifting over five pounds was an essential job function. The court found genuine disputes existed regarding what constituted essential functions. While employers’ judgments about essential functions receive deference, Simpson presented evidence that AFA had previously accommodated lifting restrictions, suggested tasks could be divided into smaller components, and that many job duties did not require heavy lifting. The court concluded a reasonable factfinder could determine that even if moving documents was essential, the ability to lift over five pounds was not.
Reasonable Accommodation: The court found AFA failed to engage in good faith interactive process. Evidence showed AFA quickly concluded the restriction was a hardship without seeking Simpson’s input, created documentation to justify their position rather than explore accommodations, and made the termination decision before meeting with Simpson. Although failure to engage in interactive process alone cannot support a claim, it made summary judgment difficult for AFA.
Simpson identified several potential accommodations including dividing heavy document batches, task reallocation, and reassignment to vacant positions. The court found these suggestions plausibly reasonable given AFA’s prior accommodations and task rotations. AFA’s argument that reassignment was impossible because all positions required carrying a five-pound laptop strained credulity and evidenced bad faith, as reasonable accommodations for the laptop requirement could have been explored.
Undue Hardship: AFA argued accommodating Simpson’s year-long restriction would create undue hardship by hindering workflow and burdening coworkers. The court found conflicting evidence on this issue, noting AFA had previously made similar accommodations for extended periods, making this a question for the jury.
Disparate Treatment Claim
Using the McDonnell-Douglas framework, the court found Simpson established a prima facie case of discrimination. AFA articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, but Simpson presented evidence creating genuine disputes about pretext. This included evidence that supervisors inaccurately understood Simpson’s limitations, had made critical statements about her accommodation request, and AFA’s previous accommodation of similar restrictions contradicted their hardship claims.
Retaliation Claim
The court applied the same McDonnell-Douglas analysis and found Simpson presented minimally sufficient evidence to create triable issues regarding whether AFA’s stated reasons for termination were pretextual, based on the same evidence supporting the discrimination claim.
The court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and granted Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment only regarding her claim that she has an actual or record of disability within the meaning of the ADA, while denying the motion on AFA’s undue hardship defense.
Schrag on Law 