UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2147
BETH M. HANEKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MID-ATLANTIC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT; GLOBAL
EXCURSIONS, INCORPORATED; BRAD CALLAHAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-2807-WDQ)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: May 10, 2005
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
David M. Silbiger, Mark R. Millstein, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Louis R. Cohan, WEINSTOCK & SCAVO, P.C., Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Beth M. Haneke appeals from the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her
claims alleging failure to accommodate and wrongful discharge in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12213 (2000). We affirm in part and reverse and remand in
part.
This court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo.
Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no
genuine issue of material fact, given the parties’ respective
burdens of proof at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In determining
whether the moving party has shown there is no genuine issue of
material fact, a court must assess the factual evidence and all
inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Id. at 255.
Haneke was diagnosed with familial polyposis or “Gardners
Syndrome” in 1993. This condition is marked by the development of
numerous benign polyps in the colon, which typically become
malignant if left untreated. The polyps grow in size, pushing
against organs and systems, necessitating the insertion of stents
in the ureter to pass bodily fluids. These stents must be changed
approximately every eight weeks. This procedure takes place on an
- 2 -
outpatient basis and usually requires two to three days of
recovery. In addition, the polyps cause obstruction of renal
function and infections that can unexpectedly flare up and require
hospital care. Haneke’s day-to-day symptoms and limitations
include restrictions on heavy lifting and excessive physical
activity, dehydration, fatigue, pain, and dietary restrictions. In
1993, physicians removed Haneke’s large intestine, necessitating
the use of a colostomy bag. Haneke argues that her disease
substantially limits her ability to care for herself after surgical
procedures and during “flare-ups”. During those times, she
describes herself as “bedridden” and “completely reliant” upon
others.
To establish a prima facie case for failure to
accommodate, an employee must show: (1) she was an individual with
a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the employer had
notice of her disability; (3) with reasonable accommodation, she
could perform the essential functions of the position; and (4) the
employer refused to make such accommodations. Rhoads v. FDIC, 257
F.3d 373, 387 n.11 (4th Cir. 2001). Implicit in the fourth element
is the ADA requirement that the employer and employee engage in an
interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation. 29
C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). We find that there is a disputed issue of
material fact as to whether both parties met their respective
burdens of engaging in the interactive process in good faith, and
- 3 -
whether that caused a failure to accommodate. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings on
this issue.
To establish a prime facie case of wrongful discharge, a
plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) she
is within the ADA’s protected class; (2) she was discharged; (3) at
the time of her discharge, she was performing the job at a level
that met her employer’s legitimate expectations; and (4) her
discharge occurred under circumstances that raise a reasonable
inference of unlawful discrimination. Haulbrook v. Michelin N.
Am., Inc., 252 F.3d 696, 702 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal citations
omitted). We have reviewed the record and the opinion of the
district court and find no reversible error as to this claim. We
therefore affirm the award of summary judgment as to the wrongful
discharge claim on the reasoning of the district court. See
Haneke v. Mid-Atlantic Capital Mgmt., No. CA-03-2807-WDQ (D. Md.
Aug. 10, 2004).
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 IN PART; REVERSED
AND REMANDED IN PART
- 4 -