a job; any such appearance would have been only a minor aspect of her job); Conneen v. MBNA 334 F.3d 318, 327 (3d Cir. 2003) (promptness was not an essential function America Bank, N.A., merely because the employer thought it necessary for the employee to set an example for employees); 867 F.3d 411, 413, 415 (3d Cir. McNelis v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 2017) (plaintiff who was fired from his job as an armed security officer at a nuclear power plant – after he and mental health and failed a fitness for duty exam “experienced personal problems” conducted by a psychologist could not perform the of his job because – “essential functions” regulations require Nuclear Security Officers to be fit for duty “[Nuclear Regulatory Commission] and to maintain unescorted security and the plaintiff not satisfy either legally … clearance” “did mandated requirement at the time he was at 416 n.2 (reasoning in the alternative that id. fired”); even if the plaintiff had stated a prima facie case, the requirements would NRC’s regulatory provide a defense (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(e)). The Third Circuit has held that whether a particular function is an of a “essential function” job under the ADA is a question best left for the jury. 440 F.3d Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 604, 613 (3d Cir. 2006). However, where the function is an essential function because it is a legally-defined requirement, that presents a question of law for the court. 867 F.3d See McNelis, at 415 (in affirming grant of summary judgment dismissing claims, citing Nuclear plaintiff’s Regulatory Commission requirements and well-settled proposition that legally-defined job “the ‘a qualification is by its very nature an essential function under [the (quoting Brickers v. ADA]’” 145 F.3d 846, 850 (6th Cir. 1998))). Cleveland Bd. of Educ.,
a job; any such appearance would have been only a minor aspect of her job); Conneen v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 334 F.3d 318, 327 (3d Cir. 2003) (promptness was not an essential function merely because the employer thought it necessary for the employee to set an example for employees); McNelis v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 867 F.3d 411, 413, 415 (3d Cir. 2017) (plaintiff – who was fired from his job as an armed security officer at a nuclear power plant after he “experienced personal and mental health problems” and failed a fitness for duty exam conducted by a psychologist – could not perform the “essential functions” of his job because “[Nuclear Regulatory Commission] regulations require Nuclear Security Officers to be fit for duty … and to maintain unescorted security clearance” and the plaintiff “did not satisfy either legally mandated requirement at the time he was fired”); id. at 416 n.2 (reasoning in the alternative that even if the plaintiff had stated a prima facie case, the NRC’s regulatory requirements would provide a defense (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(e)). The Third Circuit has held that whether a particular function is an “essential function” of a job under the ADA is a question best left for the jury. Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604, 613 (3d Cir. 2006). However, where the function is an essential function because it is a legally-defined requirement, that presents a question of law for the court. See McNelis, 867 F.3d at 415 (in affirming grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims, citing Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements and “the well-settled proposition that ‘a legally-defined job qualification is by its very nature an essential function under [the ADA]’” (quoting Brickers v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 145 F.3d 846, 850 (6th Cir. 1998))).
9_Chap_9_2018_March.docx