No. 18-567

Danny Snapp v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-10-31
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: ada ADA-interactive-process ada-reasonable-accommodation burden-of-proof civil-rights disability-discrimination employer-burden employment interactive-process jury-instruction jury-instructions reasonable-accommodation summary-judgment undue-hardship us-airways-v-barnett
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference: 2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

whether-employer-must-provide-interactive-process-instruction

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

question presented is: 1. At the trial of an ADA claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, upon proof that the employer failed to initiate an interactive process after an employee’s request for accommodation, is the disabled employee entitled to a jury instruction explaining the employer’s obligation to engage in good faith in an interactive process to identify an accommodation; and, the effect of an employer’s breach of the obligation? At trial, the trial judge declined to give Snapp’s proposed instruction advising the jury that, if Snapp proved defendant breached a mandatory obligation to engage with him in the interactive process, defendant bore the burden of proving no_ reasonable accommodation was possible. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Panel decided that the employer does not bear the burden of proving no reasonable accommodation was possible when the employer breaches its obligation ii to engage in the interactive process. The second question presented is: 2. At the trial of an ADA claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, if a disabled employee proves that the employer breached its mandatory obligation to initiate an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation, does the employer bear the burden of proving that no reasonable accommodation was possible to avoid liability? At trial, Snapp proposed a jury instruction defining the plaintiff's and defendant’s burdens with respect to “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship” in the way outlined in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002). The Ninth Circuit Panel held that US Airways’ applied only to summary judgment decisions and did not apply at trial. The third question presented is: 3. Does US Airways v. Barnett, Inc., 535 U.S. 391 (2000) describe the burdens of proof and production at trial on a claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation or merely set forth a framework for the court’s analysis of evidence on motions for summary judgment?

Docket Entries

2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-10-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 30, 2018)

Attorneys

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company
Britenae Marin Coates PierceRyan, Swanson & Cleveland, PLLC, Respondent
Britenae Marin Coates PierceRyan, Swanson & Cleveland, PLLC, Respondent
Danny Snapp
Stephen L. BrischettoLaw Offices of Stephen L. Brischetto, Petitioner
Stephen L. BrischettoLaw Offices of Stephen L. Brischetto, Petitioner