## Facts

- Tonia E. Fisher worked for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) as a Customer Service Technician, a field position that included climbing non-step poles; company policy recommended use of hooks (gaffs), and SWBT treated hook-assisted pole climbing as an essential job function.
- Fisher took short-term disability leave from August 2005 to August 2006.
- She returned to work on August 21, 2006 under temporary restrictions in a transitional work program.
- On October 19, 2006, Fisher’s physician cleared her to return without restrictions, and she resumed regular duties.
- After restrictions ended, Fisher’s supervisor required her to demonstrate pole climbing using hooks; Fisher said she had not used hooks in two years and had not used them for job performance in nine years.
- SWBT directed Fisher to attend New Employment Safety Training (NEST) to review safe hook-climbing methods.
- Fisher believed hook climbing was dangerous given her physical condition and unnecessary for her job, and she did not report to the training despite being told refusal would be treated as insubordination.
- Fisher provided no medical documentation showing she was unable to climb with hooks at the time she was ordered to attend NEST.
- SWBT terminated Fisher for insubordination based on her refusal to attend the required safety training.
- Fisher sued SWBT and AT&T Inc., alleging ADA disability discrimination and retaliation and Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation; AT&T was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether Fisher produced sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment on ADA discrimination, including disability status, qualification to perform essential functions, and pretext.
2. Whether Fisher produced sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment on ADA retaliation, including causation and pretext.
3. Whether Fisher established prima facie Title VII sex discrimination or retaliation and showed SWBT’s stated reason was pretextual.
4. Whether the district court properly dismissed AT&T Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion in discovery and case-management rulings, including denial of additional discovery, late filings, and leave to file a third amended complaint.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for SWBT on all ADA and Title VII claims.
- The court held SWBT articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory reason for termination: Fisher’s refusal to attend required safety training tied to an essential job function.
- The court found Fisher failed to show disability or inability to perform essential functions at the relevant time, emphasizing her medical clearance to work without restrictions.
- The court concluded Fisher failed to raise a triable issue of pretext and failed to identify similarly situated male employees treated more favorably.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of AT&T Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient contacts with Oklahoma and no showing AT&T directed the employment decisions at issue.
- The court affirmed the district court’s discovery and amendment rulings, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- ADA and Title VII claims supported by circumstantial evidence are commonly analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework (prima facie case, legitimate reason, pretext).
- An employer may require an employee to perform and train for essential job functions; refusal to comply with required safety training may constitute a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for termination.
- Medical clearance to work without restrictions can undermine a claim that the employee was substantially limited in a major life activity at the time of the adverse action.
- To show pretext, a plaintiff must present evidence that the employer’s stated reason is so inconsistent, implausible, or contradictory that a reasonable factfinder could find it unworthy of belief.
- Title VII disparate-treatment claims generally require evidence that similarly situated employees outside the protected class engaged in comparable misconduct but were treated more favorably.
- Personal jurisdiction over a corporate parent or holding company requires minimum contacts attributable to that entity; affiliation with a subsidiary, without more, is insufficient.
- Discovery management, enforcement of scheduling orders, and denial of leave to amend are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld judgment for SWBT because Fisher’s termination followed her refusal to attend mandated safety training for an essential function, and she failed to produce evidence of ADA-qualifying disability, discriminatory or retaliatory motive, or pretext; the court also upheld dismissal of AT&T for lack of personal jurisdiction and affirmed the district court’s discretionary procedural rulings.


Fisher v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 361 F. App’x 974 (10th Cir. 2010)