McFarland-Peebles v. Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2008
LILLIAN L. MCFARLAND-PEEBLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00081-LMB-JFA)
Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lillian L. McFarland-Peebles, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Clayton
Fleming, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lillian L. McFarland-Peebles (“McFarland”) appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) on McFarland’s civil action
under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 2005 & Supp. 2009). Because the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment, we
affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. Co., 556 F.3d
165, 167 (4th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when
no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is
“entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c). Summary judgment will be granted unless “a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” on the
evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986).
The ADA prohibits discrimination against an otherwise
qualified individual with a disability because of the disability
of that individual. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a). The plaintiff has
the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Ennis v.
Nat’l Ass’n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55, 58 (4th
2
Cir. 1995). To establish a prima facie case, McFarland must
demonstrate that: (1) she has a disability; (2) she is a
“qualified individual” for the job in question; and (3) she was
discharged because of her disability. E.E.O.C. v. Stowe-Pharr
Mills, Inc., 216 F.3d 373, 377 (4th Cir. 2000). A “qualified
individual” is “one ‘who, with or without reasonable
accommodation, can perform the essential functions’ of her job.”
Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C.A. § 12111(8)).
When granting summary judgment, the district court
determined that McFarland failed to demonstrate she could
perform the essential functions of her job. Though McFarland
now contends that she could have performed her job had she been
placed in another position, this assertion contradicts her
earlier sworn statements. In a span of less than four years,
McFarland suffered a dozen epileptic seizures, during which she
would experience “sharp pain radiating from the front to the
back of her head,” followed by “periods of uncontrollable
shaking lasting 5 to 20 minutes.” Though her seizures were
initially controlled with medication, the efficacy of this
treatment significantly lessened as time passed, until McFarland
was experiencing severe seizures on a semiweekly basis despite
large doses of medication. Such frequent seizures would
significantly interfere with, if not negate, her ability to
perform the essential functions of her job. While McFarland
3
contends that she could have been reassigned to a position that
did not focus so heavily on stressful customer service, and
would therefore be less likely to cause a seizure, her seizures
occurred both at home and at work. Because these frequent
seizures would prevent McFarland from performing the essential
functions of any office position, the district court did not err
in determining that McFarland failed to establish a prima facie
case of discrimination.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4