[PUBLISH]

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13083 ____________________

TEDDY BEASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus O’REILLY AUTO PARTS,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00092-N ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13083 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 05/24/2023 Page: 2 of 39

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13083

Before LUCK, BRASHER, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges. ED CARNES, Circuit Judge: Teddy Beasley is a deaf man who can understand only about 30% of verbal communication through lipreading. He communi- cates primarily through American Sign Language (ASL). Beasley worked for O’Reilly Auto Parts (O’Reilly) as an in- bound materials handler. He claims that the company discrimi- nated against him in violation of Title I of the Americans with Dis- abilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), because it did not provide him with the reasonable accommodations that he requested for his disability. He alleges that he requested but did not receive an ASL interpreter for various meetings, training, and a company picnic. He also alleges that he asked for text messages summarizing nightly pre-shift meetings but did not receive them either. The district court, acting by consent through a magistrate judge, granted O’Reilly’s motion for summary judgment on Beasley’s ADA claim. The court did so based on its conclusions that Beasley had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the reasonable accommodations he requested related to his es- sential job functions, and that he had suffered an adverse employ- ment action because of O’Reilly’s failure to provide those accom- modations. Reviewing de novo and looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to Beasley, as we are required to do, see Hallums v. Infinity Ins. Co., 945 F.3d 1144, 1148 (11th Cir. 2019), we conclude that genuine issues of material fact do exist about whether two of USCA11 Case: 21-13083 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 05/24/2023 Page: 3 of 39

21-13083 Opinion of the Court 3

Beasley’s requested accommodations relate to his essential job functions and whether the failure to provide those two accommo- dations led to an “adverse employment decision,” Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247, 1263 n.17 (11th Cir. 2007). Here is what the evidence, viewed in the light most favora- ble to Beasley, shows. First, he requested text message summaries of nightly pre-shift meetings, but those were not regularly sent to him, and the ones that he was sent were incomplete. He eventually requested an ASL interpreter to discuss with management his ex- clusion from the nightly meetings, but none was provided. The nightly meetings were mandatory and included safety information. Second, O’Reilly failed to provide Beasley with an ASL in- terpreter to resolve a disputed disciplinary matter that arose after he missed some nights of work in July 2017. Beasley maintained