Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mai-Tram H Tran served as a Carrollton police officer from 2001 until 2023. After suffering line-of-duty injuries in 2021, including a head injury that she said caused post-concussion syndrome and traumatic brain injury, she received injury leave and worked temporary light-duty assignments. A medical evaluation later determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement.
Tran requested a permanent light-duty desk position, but Police Chief Robert Arredondo told her that no such sworn-officer position existed and advised her that she could apply for available civilian desk jobs. On October 3, 2023, Tran’s physician cleared her to return with restrictions against running, repetitive neck twisting, and working at heights or on scaffolding. The City terminated her that day because those restrictions prevented her from meeting what it considered the minimum physical qualifications for police officers.
Tran sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII, alleging discriminatory discharge, failure to accommodate, retaliation, harassment, and discrimination based on protected characteristics. The City moved for summary judgment and to strike portions of Tran’s evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the City summary judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. It held that no reasonable jury could find Tran qualified for a police-officer position, with or without reasonable accommodation. Tran did not dispute her physical restrictions and failed to produce evidence that an available Carrollton position existed whose essential functions she could perform. Although she identified an open detective position, she did not show that it lacked the physical requirements applicable to sworn officers. The ADA did not require the City to create a permanent light-duty job.
The court also held, independently, that Tran presented no evidence from which a jury could find that the City’s stated reason for terminating her—her inability to perform essential police-officer functions—was pretextual. Her failure-to-accommodate claim failed on the same qualification issue, and her retaliation claim failed because she did not establish a causal connection or pretext. The court concluded that Tran had not adequately pleaded a separate ADA harassment claim and, in any event, offered no supporting evidence.
Tran’s Title VII claim likewise failed because she did not identify similarly situated non-Asian or male officers treated more favorably under nearly identical circumstances, nor did she produce evidence of discriminatory animus or pretext. The court also struck references to two previously undisclosed detectives, one detective’s declaration and attachments, and hearsay statements attributed to assistant police chiefs; it denied the remaining evidentiary objections as moot.
Key Takeaways
- An ADA plaintiff seeking reassignment must identify an available position whose essential functions she could perform, with or without reasonable accommodation.
- An employer need not create a permanent light-duty position or remove essential job functions as an accommodation.
- Comparator evidence must involve employees situated under nearly identical circumstances, including comparable restrictions, qualifications, and job responsibilities.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden facing employees who contend that particular duties listed for a public-safety position are not genuinely essential. Evidence that other departments accommodated disabled officers, or that an employer had vacancies generally, is insufficient without proof concerning the functions and availability of a specific position within the defendant’s organization.
It also underscores the importance of timely witness disclosures and a developed record regarding proposed accommodations. Undisclosed witnesses and unsupported statements about an employer’s ability to create a position may be excluded and cannot supply the proof needed to defeat summary judgment.