United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 28, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
__________________________ Clerk
No. 04-50131
Summary Calendar
__________________________
ALICE F. CEASAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, and
ROBERT G. DAVIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(No. SA-02-CV-1132)
___________________________________________________
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
*
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Ceasar, argues that when Appellee, United Services Automobile
Association (“USAA”) terminated her employment, USAA violated the American
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth
in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1
Disabilities Act (“ADA”). “To make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the
ADA [a claimant] must show that (a) he has a disability; (b) he is a qualified individual for
the job in question; and (c) an adverse employment decision was made because of his
disability.” Hamilton v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 136 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir.
1998). This Court has held that to be “qualified” for a job under the ADA, an employee
“must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable
accommodation.” Hypes v. First Commerce Corp., 134 F.3d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 1998).
Ceasar fails to establish that she was “qualified” for the job at issue. Timely
attendance was an essential function of Ceasar’s job because she was responsible for
handling incoming calls from potential and existing USAA customers. Indeed, Ceasar
readily admits that “[a]ttendance was necessary to perform [her] job requirements.”
Summary judgment evidence indicates that (1) Ceasar incurred at least 22 unscheduled
absences in 3 months; (2) she was admonished regarding the necessity of her timely
presence at her desk; (3) she incurred 5 additional unscheduled absences after the
disciplinary admonishment; (4) she was then placed on probation and warned that any
further unscheduled absences would result in her immediate dismissal; and (5) she
incurred additional unscheduled absences after the warning. These undisputed facts show
that Ceasar was unable to perform an essential function of her job. Under the ADA, Ceasar
was not “qualified.” We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
1
On appeal, Ceasar only argues that USAA violated the ADA. We therefore do
not consider her arguments to the district court regarding the other defendants in this
case.
2