Background
Kathleen Holbrook sued her former employer, Anchor Glass Container Corporation, in August 2022, asserting multiple federal employment claims: hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination under Title VII; retaliation and disability discrimination under the ADA; and interference with her rights under the FMLA. The case arose from her work at an Anchor Glass facility where she had been assigned to the “Hot End” of production operations but had previously worked in the “Cold End” earlier in her career.
On May 6, 2026, the court partially adopted a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed all of Holbrook’s claims with prejudice — except her ADA discriminatory discharge claim, which was allowed to proceed. The court had granted summary judgment on her ADA failure-to-accommodate claim because she could not show that a vacant position existed to which she could have been reassigned. Anchor Glass then moved for reconsideration of the court’s denial of summary judgment on the surviving discriminatory discharge claim, arguing that the same vacancy finding that defeated the accommodation claim should also doom the discharge claim.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Anchor Glass’s motion for reconsideration. It held that a discriminatory discharge claim and a failure-to-accommodate claim are two legally distinct causes of action under the ADA, requiring different showings. For the discharge claim, the relevant question is not whether a vacant position existed for reassignment, but whether the employer terminated the employee because of her disability — an issue distinct from the accommodation analysis.
The court further held that Holbrook had made a prima facie showing that she was a “qualified individual” under 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Although Holbrook acknowledged she could not perform the essential functions of her Hot End position, she expressed a desire to work in the Cold End without any accommodation — a role she had previously performed. Because the ADA’s definition of “qualified individual” extends to positions an employee desires, not just the one she holds, and because Anchor Glass never argued she was incapable of performing Cold End functions, Holbrook satisfied the qualified-individual prong of her prima facie case. Whether her discharge was motivated by her disability remains a question of fact for the jury.
Key Takeaways
- ADA discriminatory discharge and failure-to-accommodate claims are legally distinct: the absence of a vacant position may defeat an accommodation claim without also defeating a discharge claim.
- The ADA’s “qualified individual” inquiry is not limited to the job a plaintiff held — it encompasses other positions within the company that the plaintiff desires and is capable of performing.
- A motion for reconsideration requires more than a repetition of prior arguments; grounds include intervening legal change, newly available evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
- Where an employer fails to argue that a plaintiff cannot perform the essential functions of a desired position, the plaintiff can establish the qualified-individual element of a prima facie ADA discharge case as a matter of law.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces an important boundary in ADA litigation: employers cannot simply carry over the reasoning that defeats a failure-to-accommodate claim to knock out a discriminatory discharge claim. The two theories target different employer conduct — one addresses whether the employer adequately explored reassignment options; the other addresses whether the employer’s termination decision was infected by disability-based animus. Conflating the two analyses would allow employers to insulate discharge decisions from scrutiny simply because no open role was available.
The ruling also serves as a practical reminder that the “qualified individual” analysis under the ADA casts a wide net. So long as an employee desires and is capable of performing another position within the company, she may satisfy that element even if she concedes she cannot perform her current role. Employers moving for summary judgment on ADA discharge claims must squarely address the full range of positions the plaintiff identifies as desired alternatives — not just the position from which she was terminated.