## Facts

- Lawrence A. Mitchell, Jr. worked as Head Custodian at a public high school operated by Washingtonville Central School District.
- Mitchell’s right leg had been amputated above the knee; he used a prosthesis and experienced increasing pain, swelling, and skin breakdown, aggravated by prolonged standing and walking.
- The Head Custodian job, by description and practice, required substantial time “on his feet,” with limited desk work, and included supervision, maintenance, protection of the building, and some groundskeeping.
- As the school expanded, Mitchell’s workload increased; he eventually stopped reporting to work for an extended period.
- Mitchell sought workers’ compensation and Social Security disability benefits, asserting he was unable to work because he could not stand or walk and was in constant pain when using his prosthesis; an ALJ awarded Social Security disability benefits.
- The District notified Mitchell it intended to terminate him for job abandonment; Mitchell responded by requesting reasonable accommodation to continue working.
- The District terminated Mitchell and did not reinstate him in a modified or alternative role.
- Mitchell sued under the ADA, alleging failure to accommodate and discriminatory discharge; the district court granted summary judgment to the District, and Mitchell appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Mitchell’s successful representations in workers’ compensation and Social Security proceedings that he was unable to work judicially estopped him from asserting in an ADA action that he could perform the Head Custodian job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
2. Whether the accommodations Mitchell sought were unreasonable because they would eliminate or reassign essential functions of the Head Custodian position.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the School District.
- The court held Mitchell was judicially estopped from claiming he could perform the Head Custodian job other than in a sedentary capacity, given his prior successful assertions that he could not stand or walk and was unable to work.
- The court further held that, independent of estoppel, the accommodations requested would have required removal or reassignment of essential job functions, which the ADA does not require.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial estoppel may bar an ADA plaintiff from asserting he is a “qualified individual” when he previously obtained disability-related benefits by taking a materially inconsistent position about his ability to work, accepted by an adjudicative body.
- To establish a prima facie ADA claim, a plaintiff must show he can perform the job’s essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation.
- Essential functions are assessed using the employer’s job description and the actual day-to-day demands of the position.
- Reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to eliminate essential duties, reallocate essential functions to others, or create a new job; an accommodation that converts a fundamentally physical job into a sedentary one is not required.

## Conclusion

The court concluded Mitchell could not proceed under the ADA because his prior disability-benefits assertions that he was unable to stand or walk and unable to work estopped him from claiming he could perform the essential, non-sedentary functions of the Head Custodian position, and the accommodations he sought would have impermissibly removed essential job duties.


Mitchell v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 1999)