## Facts

- Harald E. Martinson II worked as a shoe salesperson for Kinney Shoe Corporation in Virginia and was rehired full-time in January 1992.
- Martinson had epilepsy; at work his seizures caused him to collapse and appear asleep for 5–10 minutes, followed by a 20–45 minute recovery break.
- Kinney knew about Martinson’s epilepsy when it rehired him and acknowledged he was a strong salesperson, including receiving employee awards.
- At the store, salespersons were expected to provide customer service and perform security-related functions such as monitoring the sales floor and preventing theft.
- Martinson sometimes worked alone; during seizures and recovery he could not supervise the floor, assist customers, or provide security coverage.
- After several workplace seizures, Kinney terminated Martinson, citing operational and safety/security concerns.
- The EEOC sued under the ADA for disability discrimination; Martinson intervened as a plaintiff.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Kinney, concluding Martinson was not a qualified individual able to perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

## Issues

1. Whether Martinson was a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA—i.e., able to perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
2. Whether any reasonable accommodation (including staffing changes or job restructuring) would allow Martinson to perform essential security and supervision functions without unacceptable operational risk.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Kinney.
- The court held that continuous floor supervision and security coverage were essential functions of the position at that store.
- Because Martinson’s seizures periodically rendered him unconscious and unavailable for extended periods, he could not perform those essential functions during shifts, particularly when working alone.
- No reasonable accommodation identified in the record would have enabled Martinson to perform the essential security-related functions; accommodations that would remove or permanently reassign those functions were not required by the ADA.
- The court noted the district court’s reasoning contained some analytical errors, but the result was correct under the proper ADA framework.

## Legal Principles

- An ADA plaintiff must be a “qualified individual,” meaning the person can perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
- Essential functions may include non-sales duties (e.g., security and continuous supervision) where the employer reasonably requires constant alert presence for store operations.
- The ADA requires reasonable accommodations, not measures that eliminate, permanently delegate, or reassign essential job functions.
- An employer may rely on the actual, demonstrated effect of a disability on performance of essential functions, rather than acting on generalized fears or stereotypes.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that a salesperson whose epilepsy caused recurring periods of unconsciousness and recovery time was not ADA-qualified for a position where continuous on-floor supervision and security were essential, because no reasonable accommodation would permit performance of those essential functions.


Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 104 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 1997)