Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—N.D. Ala.: Granting police dispatcher’s requested accommodation would have created direct threat, (Sep 16, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The employee, who had suffered an aneurysm, requested accommodations that would decrease the stress from her job.

A reasonable factfinder could not conclude that a municipal employer could have accommodated a police dispatch supervisor who requested several accommodations after suffering an intercranial aneurysm—including working few days, shorter shifts, and taking more breaks—without creating a direct threat, a federal court in Alabama held, granting summary judgment against her ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. Nor could she advance her hostile work environment claim, said the court, as she failed to show she experienced harassment due to a protected characteristic. And because she was unable to show that she and a white coworker were similarly situated, her Title VII race discrimination claim also failed (Jones v. City of Birmingham, No. 2:23-cv-00513 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 10, 2025)).

The African-American employee supervised three fire dispatchers who answered 911 calls related to fire or medical emergencies. Dispatchers and dispatch supervisors all worked 12-hour shifts, and there was only one dispatch supervisor on duty per shift.

As a whole. In December 2020, a Black woman became the employee’s new supervisor and, according to the employee, she almost immediately “knew she needed to stay away” from the supervisor because she did not like the employee “as a whole.” Six months later, the employee suffered a cavernous intracranial aneurysm that impacted her vision and caused headaches and dizzy spells.

Accommodation requests. After several weeks of leave, the employee returned to work and requested multiple accommodations, including working at most five consecutive days, instead of seven or eight; eight-hour shifts instead of 12; and, taking several breaks each shift in order to spend no more than four hours on a computer without breaks. The requested accommodations were intended to decrease stress.

The city agreed to temporarily accommodate the employee for 30 days by assigning her to switchboard operator at the same rate of pay while it considered her requests. The city granted the employee all accommodations as a switchboard operator except that she had to find coverage for her 30-minute breaks.

Unfit. In the meantime, the chief HR officer spoke to the employee’s supervisor, and they allegedly determined that the employee was unfit to serve as a dispatch supervisor. The employee’s purported options at that point were to accept the switchboard operator position for permanent placement, apply for other positions, or apply for disability.

After learning that a 311-supervisor position was already filled, the employee told her supervisor she was only interested in her original dispatch supervisor position. The city then extended the temporary accommodation but told her it would fill her original position and it was her responsibility to find another position. The city did not select the employee for another position and she applied for disability when the temporary accommodation ended. She subsequently sued the city, alleging it discriminated and retaliated against her because of her disability and discriminated against her based on race.

Failure to accommodate. As to the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim, the city conceded that the employee was disabled, but it argued she was not a qualified individual under the ADA because the evidence did not show she could perform the essential functions of dispatch supervisor even with reasonable accommodation. The city essentially argued the employee was a “direct threat” under the ADA because she posed a significant risk to the health or safety of others that could not be cured through reasonable accommodation.

The very nature of the dispatch supervisor position, the court observed, required continuous radio monitoring during stressful emergency situations for extended, indefinite periods of time. Consequently, the listed qualifications included willingness to work any shift, for example, a 12-hour shift, on any day of the week, including overtime as needed. Taking breaks from radio communications might cause injury or death. The employee offered no facts or arguments to rebut the city’s “direct threat” defense.

The court found the employee also failed to paint a convincing circumstantial picture to permit a jury to infer intentional discrimination. The only evidence she presented of a forced choice between demotion or disability was her inquiry about the 311-dispatch supervisor position, which the city gave to someone else. Moreover, the employee did not dispute she was unqualified for that position. In light of all of the above, the court concluded the failure-to-accommodate claim failed as a matter of law.

Hostile work environment. Addressing next the employee’s hostile work environment claim, the court assumed it was viable under the ADA. In dismissing this claim, it found the employee did not show any harassment because of a protected characteristic.

She testified her supervisor was the only person who created a hostile work environment from the very beginning of her supervisor’s employment; however, the employee did not incur her disability until about six months later. The employee also failed to tie the supervisor’s supposed dislike of her to the disability. She testified she did not know whether the two things were connected and failed to rebut city evidence and arguments. The court concluded no reasonable juror could find a hostile work environment. The court accordingly held the employee’s hostile work environment claim failed as a matter of law.

Racial discrimination. Finally, as to the employee’s Title VII race discrimination claim, she argued that the city treated a white employee with a heart condition more favorably by granting his request for accommodations. The court, however, found the employee did not sufficiently establish that the white coworker was similarly situated. Evidence of cross-training was not enough to show both employees were subject to the same employment policies or shared an employment history. The employee also testified she did not know what accommodations the coworker requested. Accordingly, the employee failed to meet her burden under McDonnell Douglas.

Nor did she present enough circumstantial evidence to permit an inference of intentional discrimination to shift the burden. The employee only referenced that she could only go to doctors’ appointments if she got coverage and her supervisor’s refusal to place her in the 311 dispatch supervisor position. She also testified that it would not be fair to say that her supervisor, also black, did not like her because of her race. The court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on the claim of racial discrimination because the employee did not present enough direct or even circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-00513.

Judge: Axon, A.

Attorneys: Scott Thomas Morro (Morro Law Center) for Latricia Jones. Samantha A. Chandler, City of Birmingham, and Pamela T. Jones, Office of the City Attorney, for City of Birmingham.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Discrimination AlabamaNews