Kinney v. St. Mary’s Health, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim, alleging that defendant had failed to accommodate her anxiety disability by either allowing her to work remotely on full-time basis during COVID-19 pandemic or by allowing her to return to work without having to wear mask, since her anxiety condition precluded her from wearing mask. Record showed that due to her supervisory position that required that she actually observe her subordinates, plaintiff was not qualified individual for protection under ADA since presence at hospital was essential job duty for her, and plaintiff could not satisfy said requirement by merely getting reports from others about her subordinates. Moreover, plaintiff’s proposed accommodation was not reasonable. As such, plaintiff’s eventual resignation because defendant was requiring her full-time presence at hospital did not constitute actionable constructive discharge. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s summary judgment motion with respect to two Title VII claims alleging failure to promote, where: (1) plaintiff failed to provide evidence that she was more qualified than male successful candidate in one position; and (2) in other position, plaintiff failed to present evidence that reason that defendant gave for selecting successful male candidate, i.e. that candidate had more relevant experience and had excellent interview, was pretext for sex discrimination.