Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. La.: Fired laborer with narcolepsy could not perform essential job functions, (Apr 29, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

Coming into work later would not remedy his inability to stay awake the entire day.

The City of Ponchatoula was entitled to summary judgment on a laborer’s ADA and state discrimination claims where his requested accommodation of coming into work later due to his narcolepsy would not have enabled him to perform the essential functions of the job, a federal district court in Louisiana ruled. His retaliation claim also failed because he did not show a causal connection between his request for an accommodation and his termination for tardiness and absenteeism (Roberts v. Ponchatoula City, No. 24-362 (E.D. La. Apr. 28, 2025)).

The employee, who has narcolepsy with cataplexy, visual perceptual disorder/dyslexia, and ADHD, applied for a job with the City of Ponchatoula and completed a pre-employment medical exam in April 2022. A few days after he applied, he started work as a laborer.

Request for schedule change. That July, the employee and his mother met with the city’s HR manager and the mayor’s administrative assistant to discuss the employee’s struggles at work as well as possible accommodations. He requested assistance in completing outstanding employment forms because of his dyslexia and a change in schedule due to his narcolepsy with cataplexy. He claimed he was not given any assistance with the forms and his request for a change in schedule was denied without an offer of any reasonable alternatives.

Seizure at work. In October, the employee had a narcoleptic seizure while at work. After the incident, he went the emergency room and was cleared to participate in all work activities. A month later, he was on call and claimed to have overslept due to his altered medication. The HR manager notified him a few days later that he had been terminated due to tardiness and absenteeism.

Complaint filed. Thereafter, the employee filed suit against Ponchatoula alleging violations of the ADA and Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (LEDL). The city filed this motion for summary judgment.

Disability. Addressing the threshold element of a prima facie showing of discrimination under the ADA, the court found the employee was disabled. He had shown that, at least once, he had experienced symptoms of narcolepsy with cataplexy, including extreme daytime sleepiness and sudden loss of muscle control, while working for the city.

Not qualified. Next, the court found the employee was not a qualified individual and granted summary judgment in the city’s favor on his discrimination claims. Timely arrival and attendance were essential functions of the employee’s position. His request for a later start time and deposition testimony that he was written up for tardiness indicated that he could not perform the essential functions of his position despite his disability.

Reasonable accommodation. Turning to whether a reasonable accommodation of his disability would have enabled him to perform the essential functions of the job, the court found that it would not. The employee did not offer any evidence as to how a later start time would accommodate the disability of narcolepsy or would be reasonable in consideration of his position.

He failed to point to evidence suggesting that a cataplexy event or bouts of sleep would occur at any regular and predictable time even if he were allowed to come in late. He did not show, for example, that his cataplexy event at work was caused by his unaccommodated work schedule or would not have occurred had he been on a different schedule. The court noted that even if it were to find that coming to work at a specific time was not an essential function of his job as a laborer, it could not find any evidence “to support the supposition that [the employee’s] requested accommodation of coming in later would remedy his inability to come in at all or stay awake the entire day without experiencing a cataplexic event.”

No retaliation. The court also granted summary judgment to the city on the employee’s retaliation claim because he failed to show a causal connection between his request for an accommodation and his termination. He requested accommodations in July 2022 and was terminated almost five months later. These two events, the court said, are not sufficiently close enough to suggest pretext. Without more, the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA.

State law claim. Because the employee failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, the court likewise found he had not made a prima facie case under the LEDL. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in the city’s favor on this claim.

The case is No. 24-362.

Judge: Milazzo, J.

Attorneys: Charles Edward Brumfield, Jr. (Law Office of Charles E Brumfield Jr.) for Edrick Roberts. Christopher M. Moody (Moody Law Group) for Ponchatoula City.

Companies: Ponchatoula City

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge StateLawClaims LouisianaNews