## Facts

- Cynthia Felkins worked as a probationary emergency dispatcher for the City of Lakewood, Colorado.
- Felkins asserted she had avascular necrosis, a rare condition affecting bone tissue, and said she disclosed lifting restrictions during the hiring process.
- She began work in October 2007, resigned the next month, and was rehired in June 2008.
- In December 2008, Felkins fractured her femur at work and claimed the fracture and subsequent limitations were caused by avascular necrosis.
- After the fracture, Felkins missed significant work and sought accommodations, including leave and schedule adjustments.
- The City terminated her employment, citing excessive absences and failure to meet probationary performance standards.
- Felkins sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging she was disabled, was qualified to perform the job with reasonable accommodation, and was terminated and not accommodated because of her disability.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City, and Felkins appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Felkins produced sufficient admissible evidence that she had an ADA “disability,” i.e., that avascular necrosis substantially limited one or more major life activities.
2. Whether lay testimony and non-expert materials, without expert medical evidence, can establish medical causation and substantial limitation for a medically complex condition at the summary judgment stage.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City.
- The court held Felkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on the threshold element of disability because she provided no expert medical evidence that avascular necrosis substantially limited any major life activity.
- The court concluded her own testimony and non-expert documentation were insufficient to prove the necessary causal link between the alleged condition and her claimed limitations.
- Because the disability element failed, the court did not need to resolve other ADA elements (including reasonable accommodation and discriminatory discharge).

## Legal Principles

- An ADA plaintiff must present evidence that an impairment substantially limits a major life activity; this includes competent proof of both impairment and limitation.
- When the alleged impairment and its effects involve medical questions outside ordinary experience (including diagnosis and causation), lay testimony alone generally cannot establish substantial limitation; expert medical evidence is typically required.
- A lay witness may testify to observed symptoms and functional difficulties, but not to specialized medical conclusions about the cause or nature of a complex condition.
- On summary judgment, absence of competent evidence on an essential ADA element warrants judgment for the employer.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the ADA claims because Felkins did not provide expert medical evidence connecting avascular necrosis to substantial limitations in major life activities, leaving no triable issue on whether she was disabled under the ADA.


Felkins v. City of Lakewood, 774 F.3d 647 (10th Cir. 2014)