Hirlston v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Jury found in favor of defendant-employer after trial on plaintiff-employee’s claim under Americans with Disabilities Act, arising out of defendant’s placement of plaintiff on involuntary leave of absence and assignment to different job with less pay, after defendant held belief that plaintiff could no longer perform essential duties of her Optical Manager job. Although plaintiff had presented defendant with certain requests for accommodations, defendant held belief that, even with said accommodations, plaintiff’s employment in her job would have conflicted with severe restrictions listed in plaintiff’s doctor’s note regarding plaintiff’s ability to bend, stoop, kneel and lift. Jury answered special verdict form that indicated that plaintiff had failed to show that she could perform essential functions of her job, and jury instructions adequately defined and explained term “qualified.” Moreover, while another jury instruction erroneously suggested to jury that it should adjudge plaintiff qualified to do her job only by reasonable accommodations that plaintiff had proposed, plaintiff did not timely objection to said instruction, and, under plain error standard, plaintiff failed to show how said instruction played dispositive role in jury’s verdict.