Leogue v. Broward Cnty.

COLEEN A. LEOGUE, Plaintiff, v. BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant.

CASE NO.: 0:18-cv-60855-GAYLES/STRAUSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

February 22, 2021

OMNIBUS ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Coleen A. Leogue's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 50] and Defendant Broward County's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 51] (collectively, the "Motions"). The Court has reviewed the Motions and the record, heard oral argument, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion is denied, and Defendant's Motion is granted.

BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff was born with a mental disability that qualifies her as a disabled individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Defendant employed Plaintiff in various capacities in the Libraries Division at the Northwest Regional Library (the "Libraries Division")—Defendant's busiest library—for thirty-five years. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant was aware of her disability.

I. The New Service Model and its Effects on the Libraries Division

In 2014, the Libraries Division underwent an organizational restructuring (the "New Service Model") that culminated in 2016 and included changes to the hours of operation and staffing. After previously reducing its hours of operation in response to the 2007-2008 recession, the New Service Model expanded the Libraries Division's hours of operation. The New Service Model also altered the staffing model for regional libraries on Sundays from rotating employees from all branch libraries to self-staffing the regional libraries. As a result of these changes, all library aides assigned to other departments within the Libraries Division—including Adult Services, Youth Services, and Audiovisual—were reassigned to the Circulation Department. This restructuring made it necessary for all library aides to be cross-trained in, and regularly perform, the essential job functions specific to a library aide in the Circulation Department.

As a result of the New Service Model, Northwest Regional Library lost four library aides who were not replaced; and, as of 2017, there were fewer supervisors because of previous layoffs. Following the implementation of the New Service Model, the Circulation Department consisted of approximately 19 library aides. A library aide's shift typically ranges from 2 to 4 hours and all part-time and full-time library aides are expected to perform their essential job functions.² Moreover, the Libraries Division is responsible for training library aides in their essential job functions.

II. Plaintiff's Accommodations Prior to Her Transfer to the Circulation Department

In 1981, Plaintiff joined the Libraries Division as a part-time library page. On January 16, 2001, Plaintiff met with Defendant's Division of Equal Employment and Small Business Opportunity (the "DEESBO") to discuss a possible accommodation because of her disability.³ In a memorandum dated June 19, 2001, the DEESBO determined that Plaintiff "is substantially limited," as defined by the ADA. In August 2001, Defendant promoted Plaintiff to a full-time library aide in the Libraries Division based on her years of experience as a library page. In February 2001, Plaintiff was transferred to the Youth Services Department of the Northwest Regional Library, where she performed manual tasks—such as shelving and retrieving books—and assisted with various children's programs. Plaintiff generally received favorable annual performance reviews with the Youth Services Department, including high marks and positive remarks on her work.

III. Plaintiff's Accommodations Following Her Transfer to the Circulation Department

As a result of the New Service Model's organizational changes, Defendant transferred Plaintiff from the Youth Services Department to the Circulation Department in August 2016. On August 31, 2016, June Fleischmann, a Library Specialist Supervisor, and Gabrina Persad, a former Library Specialist, met with Plaintiff to communicate the essential job functions of a library aide in the Circulation Department. Plaintiff was advised that she would be required to perform all the essential job functions of a library aide in the Circulation Department.⁴ Some of those essential job functions—which Defendant has not altered since at least August 2009—include: (1)producing accurate reports and statistics using appropriate software; (2) being proficient in the use of required technology and software applications; (3) performing mathematical functions involving addition, subtraction, multiplication, and/or division; (4) accurately handling money, operating a cash register, and using a calculator; (5) processing library card applications and issuing library cards; and (6) registering people to vote. After advising Ms. Fleischmann of her disability and that she was unable to perform the essential job function of handling money, Plaintiff signed a document which detailed those essential job functions.⁵

On November 28, 2016, the Libraries Division temporarily suspended the requirement that Plaintiff work the Circulation desk and handle money. Additionally, the Libraries Division referred Plaintiff to the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Professional Standards (the "OIAPS") for a determination as to whether she qualified for a reasonable accommodation. On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an ADA Accommodation Questionnaire to the OIAPS. In it, Plaintiff requested a work environment that did not require her to perform the essential job functions of a library aide in the Circulation Department and included an Addendum signed by James Leogue, Plaintiff's father, specifying the essential job functions that she could not perform. Mr. Leogue specified that Plaintiff could not perform thirty percent (30%) of the essential job functions involving mental abilities and sixty-six percent (66%) of the essential job functions involving the use of equipment. Pending a determination by the OIAPS, the Libraries Division did not require that Plaintiff perform any of the essential job functions she was unable to perform. The OIAPS review concluded, as the DEESBO previously concluded, that Plaintiff had a disability covered by the ADA.

On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff, Mr. Leogue, the OIAPS, and the Libraries Division met for the first of two interactive meetings to discuss Plaintiff's disability, its impact on her ability toperform the essential job functions of a library aide, and possible reasonable accommodations. During the first meeting, Plaintiff requested to not handle money and to be transferred back to the Youth Services Department. Plaintiff did not make any other requests or recommendations. Representatives from the Libraries Division suggested providing Plaintiff additional training as an accommodation, and Plaintiff agreed.

Following the first interactive meeting,⁶ the OIAPS memorialized the Libraries Division's workplace accommodation for Plaintiff, which consisted of three phases of training over 90 days. [ECF No. 51-1 at 22-23].⁷ In the first phase, Plaintiff would receive one-on-one training on the essential job functions of collecting fines, issuing bus passes, installing money to patrons' library cards, checking out materials to patrons, evaluating materials for completion and damage, and data processing. Id. at 22-23. In the second phase, Plaintiff would shadow designated staff from the Libraries Division. Id. at 23. In the third phase, designated Libraries Division staff would shadow and provide guidance to Plaintiff while she performed the essential job functions. Id. Circulation Department supervisors and Library Specialists were responsible for facilitating the training. The first phase of Plaintiff's training typically consisted of one to two hours per shift of one-on-one training with a computer software designed to teach Plaintiff how to utilize and count money and then transfer those learned skills to real money.⁸ The record suggests that the first phase alsoinvolved Plaintiff reading, practicing computer skills, and working the Circulation desk.⁹ See, e.g., [ECF No. 52-2 at 28-47].

On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff, Mr. Leogue, the OIAPS, and the Libraries Division met for a second interactive meeting to evaluate whether the training enabled Plaintiff to perform the essential job functions of a library aide in the Circulation Department. Because the training was not successful, Plaintiff could not advance past the first phase of training. In fact, both Plaintiff and Mr. Leogue admitted that no amount of training would have enabled Plaintiff to properly perform her essential job functions, including handling money. No other alternative reasonable workplace accommodations were identified beyond Plaintiff's request to not perform certain essential job functions and to return to the Youth Services Department.

Because the additional training was unsuccessful and no alternative reasonable work accommodations were presented, the Libraries Division referred Plaintiff to Defendant's Human Resources Staffing Services Section to assist her in seeking reassignment. During the 60-day reassignment period, Plaintiff worked with the Human Resources Staffing Services Section to find a demotion or lateral position for which she qualified. The Libraries Division agreed to hold Plaintiff's position as a library aide while she sought reassignment and to continue the additional training. Plaintiff's responsibilities also remained modified during this period and through her separation. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant was able to identify a position within the 60-day period. However, Defendant allowed Plaintiff to remain employed until December 6, 2017, so she could achieve her thirty-fifth employment anniversary and to continue exploring alternative employmentoptions with Defendant. On December 5, 2017, Defendant informed Plaintiff that her official date of separation would...