This case is little complicated for me, so bear with me. Yesterday, the 11th Circuit decided a case in favor of the city against several employment based claims of an employee. The employee had some physical ailments and under a prior management regime had been accorded some relief by serving as a foreman with fewer heavy lifting responsibilities. However, when a new manager was about to come in, the employee heard a rumor that he would be fired, so filed for disability retirement appending to his application a medical certificate detailing his complete incapacity for any work. He was turned down for retirement and the new manager came in, removed him from the foreman's duties and assigned him to work inventory. The employee complained that he could not handle this work with his infirmities and again applied for disability retirement appending another medical certification as to his incapacity to perform work. Again, he was denied. Long story short, he ultimately sued for constructive discharge and denial of overtime under the FLSA and for violation of his rights under the Rehabilitation Act. He lost on all counts in the lower court and on appeal the 11th Circuit affirmed. It noted that an employer does not need to accommodate a person by creating a position that does not exist or put a person in a vacant position for which he or she is not qualified nor promote a person to a vacant position or remove an incumbent to accommodate the protected employee. In describing the requirement of the prima facie case that a person must show he is otherwise qualified, the court noted via footnote that in this case the employee filed for disability retirement asserting that he could not perform the duties of any job which was contrary to his claim that his disability could be accommodate. In dismissing a state law claim, the court discussed notice of claims statutes and Alabama's specifically recognizing that they are preconditions to suit and thus the employee's failure to give notice precluded recovery on that claim. As to the FLSA claim -he claimed he should have been paid overtime based on the foreman's job from which he was removed and the court said: no, you were paid overtime for the job you held and that's sufficient. http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616362.pdf Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director and General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. 51 Monroe Street Suite 404 Rockville, Maryland 20850 202-466-5424 x7110 Direct: 202-742-1016 Cell: 240-876-6790 Plan ahead: IMLA's Annual Conference October 14- October 18, 2017 - Niagara, Ontario, Canada (Passport required) To register, go to: http://imla.org/events/conferences#registration IMLA's Annual Seminar and Section 1983 Defense Conference - April 20- April 23, 2018 Washington, DC