Brandon Mundt v. Sheriff, Okaloosa County

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 1 of 15

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-14130

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

BRANDON MUNDT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF, OKALOOSA COUNTY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cv-00082-TKW-ZCB

____________________

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Mundt appeals the entry of summary judgment for

the Sheriff of Okaloosa County on Mundt’s claim of employment

discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 2 of 15

2 Opinion of the Court 24-14130

(“ADA”), Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327. The district court held

that Mundt had not established the prima facie case for his discrim-

ination claim, because Mundt had failed to substantiate that he was

a “qualified individual” under the ADA and that the Sheriff unlaw-

fully discriminated against Mundt on the basis of his disability. Af-

ter careful review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Appellant Brandon Mundt worked for the Okaloosa County

Sheriff’s Department (the “Department”) for the better half of a

decade. In 2015, Mundt was involved in a car accident while work-

ing on-duty as a patrol deputy. Mundt did not immediately sustain

any serious injuries in the accident and quickly returned to work.

Mundt then rose through the ranks of the Department and, in June

2022, became an investigator in the Special Victims Unit of the

General Investigations Division.

Soon after receiving the promotion, Mundt began experi-

encing severe back pain, which he believed was directly attributa-

ble to his 2015 car accident. Mundt sought medical treatment, and

x-rays indicated trauma to his spine. Mundt submitted a work sta-

tus report to the Department. In it, his physician recommended

that Mundt could return to work on June 15 and advised that

Mundt was restricted from partaking in several activities—he could

not balance, bend, carry, or climb; run after suspects on foot, en-

gage in violence and physical confrontations, or physically secure a

resisting individual; or, in his doctor’s medical opinion, otherwise

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 3 of 15

24-14130 Opinion of the Court 3

perform the essential functions of a law enforcement officer. Be-

cause Mundt could not perform the essential functions of his job,

he was placed on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act

(“FMLA”), Pub. L. No. 103-3, 107 Stat. 6 (1993). Mundt was later

physically cleared and returned to work on July 14.

Unfortunately, Mundt continued to experience progres-

sively severe back problems. In October 2022, Mundt began seeing

Dr. Brandon Cook, who recommended that Mundt undergo back

surgery. Mundt informed his supervisors at the Department of his

surgery and was approved to take a leave of absence from Decem-

ber 1, 2022, until January 28, 2023, at which point Mundt would

have exhausted his remaining FMLA leave. The Department in-

formed Mundt that his “failure to return to duty after [his FMLA

leave] has been exhausted may be treated as a resignation unless

proper notification has been received” and apprised him that he

could “apply for any open position” for which he was qualified if

he was ultimately “unable to return to full duty” as an investigator.

Mundt had his surgery on December 1. A week later, Callie

Wilson—Dr. Cook’s physician assistant—examined Mundt and

recommended that he undergo additional surgery, which Mundt

did on December 14. Mundt had a follow-up visit with PA Wilson

on January 5, 2023. According to PA Wilson’s notes from that ex-

amination, Mundt’s pain was “much better,” though PA Wilson

thought that Mundt was not yet ready to perform the Depart-

ment’s physical abilities test (“PAT”), which Mundt would have to

complete upon returning to duty. PA Wilson gave Mundt a

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 4 of 15

4 Opinion of the Court 24-14130

“tentative return to work date” of March 14, which Mundt relayed

to his supervisors. That same day, Major Shannon Tait, one of

Mundt’s supervisors, reached out to Mundt to see how he was feel-

ing and asked whether he was interested in an opportunity to take

a non-sworn position as a dispatcher while he awaited medical

clearance. Tait told Mundt that she had talked to the undersheriff

about Mundt’s situation and conveyed that the undersheriff

“would absolutely support” Mundt taking on that role in the in-

terim. Mundt told Tait that he “appreciate[d] it” but did not give

her an answer one way or the other.

On February 8, the Department emailed Mundt, requesting

an updated work status report and informing him that his FMLA

leave was now exhausted. Mundt forwarded the Department an

updated report from PA Wilson—where she reiterated that she

“[e]xpect[ed]” Mundt to be able to work “with no restriction” on

March 14—and submitted a formal request to extend his leave.

The Department sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Cook asking

whether Mundt could perform his essential job functions and, if

not, when he could do so without restrictions. Dr. Cook answered,

“No, likely 3/14/23.”

Eight days later, Tait informed Mundt that he needed to de-

cide by February 20 whether to “resign and apply for a nonsworn

position or face termination.” Mundt also had a medical appoint-

ment on February 16, at which he told PA Wilson that he “was

doing much better.” The next day, Tait emailed Mundt to follow

up on their phone call. She again expressed that the Department

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 5 of 15

24-14130 Opinion of the Court 5

“would be more than happy to extend [Mundt] a non-sworn posi-

tion in hopes that” Mundt could return to his investigator role once

he was medically cleared. Mundt responded by renewing the re-

quest that his leave be extended until his “likely return date of

March 14.”

On the morning of February 20, Tait told Mundt that the

Department “researched” his renewed request but his options “re-

mained the same.” Tait gave Mundt until 10:00 AM to decide

whether he would apply to transfer to a non-sworn position or re-

sign. Mundt did not respond to that email. Two days later, Mundt

received a letter from the Department informing him that his em-

ployment had been terminated.

Mundt continued to attend his medical appointments fol-

lowing termination. On March 7, Mundt was examined by PA Wil-

son, who, Mundt says, “cleared him to return to work without re-

strictions.” According to Mundt, he “was still experiencing some

minor intermittent pain at this time,” but he did not find this pain

“debilitati[ng]” or believe it would have prevented him from suc-

cessfully performing his required duties as an investigator. But PA

Wilson’s notes from this appointment indicate Mundt reported he

was “still having quite a bit of leg pain” and that she continued to

believe he was not yet ready to complete the PAT. Dr. Cook

reached a similar conclusion following a June 5 appointment. And

after a September 5 visit, Dr. Cook noted that Mundt’s intermittent

leg pain had “gotten slowly worse.”

B. Procedural History

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 6 of 15

6 Opinion of the Court 24-14130

On December 26, 2023, Mundt sued Sheriff of Okaloosa

County Eric Aden in his official capacity (the “Sheriff”) in Florida

state court, alleging claims under the ADA, FMLA, Florida Civil

Rights Act (“FCRA”), and Florida Workers’ Compensation Law.

The Sheriff removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Florida and, following discovery, moved for

summary judgment.

The district court granted the Sheriff’s motion and entered

summary judgment for the Sheriff on all counts.1 On the ADA

claim, the district court held that Mundt could not establish the

prima facie case for discrimination because no reasonable juror

could find that Mundt would have been able “to perform the es-

sential functions of his job” by March 14, 2023. The district court

also concluded that Mundt’s FMLA and FCRA retaliation claims

failed as a matter of law because Mundt could not show a causal

link between his termination and his protected activity of taking

leave. Mundt timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary

judgment, viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable infer-

ences in favor of the nonmoving party. Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry.

Co., 692 F.3d 1151, 1154 (11th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is

appropriate when a movant shows that there is “no genuine dispute

1 Mundt did not respond to the Sheriff’s motion as it related to the Florida

Workers’ Compensation claim, so the district court deemed this count aban-

doned.

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 7 of 15

24-14130 Opinion of the Court 7

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material

fact exists when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Qui v. Thomas Cnty.

Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 1227, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986)).

III. ANALYSIS

Mundt only appeals the entry of summary judgment for the

Sheriff on the ADA discrimination claim.2 The ADA prohibits cov-

ered employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individ-

ual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To establish the

prima facie case for employment discrimination under the ADA, a

plaintiff must show that (1) he has a disability, (2) he is a qualified

individual, and (3) the defendant unlawfully discriminated against

him because of the disability. Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055, 1061

(11th Cir. 2000); see also Collado v. United Parcel Serv., Co., 419 F.3d

1143, 1154 n.8 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that “all the components

of the prima facie case are also elements of the claim itself ”). 3

The district court held that Mundt failed to make out the

prima facie case of his discrimination claim because no reasonable

2 Mundt has thus abandoned his other claims on appeal. See Sapuppo v. Allstate

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[I]t is well settled in this circuit

that a party abandons an issue ‘by failing to list or otherwise state it as an issue

on appeal.’” (quoting Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316,

1318 (11th Cir. 2012))).

3 The Sheriff does not dispute that Mundt suffers from a covered disability.

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 8 of 15

8 Opinion of the Court 24-14130

juror could find that Mundt was a “qualified individual” under the

ADA or that his firing constituted unlawful discrimination. We

take each element in turn.

A. The “Qualified Individual” Element

The ADA defines a “qualified individual” as one “who, with

or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential

functions of the employment position that such individual holds or

desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). To prevail on an ADA discrimination

claim, “a plaintiff must plead and prove that [he] held or desired a

job, and could perform its essential functions with or without rea-

sonable accommodation, at the time of an employer’s alleged act

of disability-based discrimination.” Stanley v. City of Sanford, 606

U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 2058, 2071 (2025); see Holly v. Clairson Indus.,

L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247, 1256 (11th Cir. 2007).

The parties agree that Mundt “needed to receive medical

clearance” and “complete the PAT” in order to return to his post as

a sworn law-enforcement officer. But they hotly dispute whether

Mundt would have been able to meet those essential functions of

the job by his requested return date of March 14.

For his part, Mundt affirmed in a sworn affidavit that PA Wil-

son “saw [him] and cleared [him] to return to work without re-

strictions” on March 7. Mundt also explained in his deposition that,

although he “was still experiencing some minor intermittent pain”

by then, that pain “was not debilitating” and “would not have pre-

vented” him from performing any of his duties as an investigator.

The Sheriff counters with substantial evidence pertaining to

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 9 of 15

24-14130 Opinion of the Court 9

Mundt’s medical history, including records indicating that Mundt

told PA Wilson at the March 7 appointment that “his legs give out

on him” and that Mundt continued to complain to his doctors that

his pain was “more or less unchanged” for several months later. Dr.

Cook also testified that he was not “aware” of ever giving Mundt

clearance to return to work.

Notwithstanding the parties’ conflicting evidence on

Mundt’s ability to return to work by March 14, the district court

determined that Mundt’s “self-serving” testimony was definitively

“refuted” by the Sheriff’s evidence such that “no reasonable jury

would find that [Mundt] was released to return to unrestricted duty

as of March 14.” This was error.

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court can-

not “weigh conflicting evidence or determine the credibility of wit-

nesses.” A.L. ex rel. D.L. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc., 900

F.3d 1270, 1289 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Jones v. UPS Ground Freight,

683 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2012); Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d

1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007)). So long as the non-movant offers com-

petent evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to him,

would allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor on that issue at

trial, the court must deny summary judgment on that issue. See

United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop. in Greene & Tuscaloosa Cntys.,

941 F.2d 1428, 1437–38 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc). That a party’s

evidence “consists . . . solely of [his] own self-serving sworn state-

ments or testimony” does not necessarily mean such evidence

“can[not] create a genuine dispute of material fact.” Blanco v.

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 10 of 15

10 Opinion of the Court 24-14130

Samuel, 91 F.4th 1061, 1070 (11th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation

marks omitted); see also Price v. Time, Inc., 416 F.3d 1327, 1345 (11th

Cir. 2005) (“Courts routinely and properly deny summary judg-

ment on the basis of a party’s sworn testimony even though it is

self-serving.”). Rather, the court must accept “a party’s testimony

on summary judgment ‘unless it is blatantly contradicted by the

record, blatantly inconsistent, or incredible as a matter of law,

meaning that it relates to facts that could not have possibly been

observed or events that are contrary to the laws of nature.’” Blanco,

91 F.4th at 1070 (quoting Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d

1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2013)).

For a plaintiff’s self-serving testimony to be sufficiently con-

tradicted such that it may be ignored, it must be so “utterly discred-

ited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him.”

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). Our Circuit has been reluctant

to apply this exception beyond instances “where a videotape of the

incident definitively established what happened and what did not.”

Sears v. Roberts, 922 F.3d 1199, 1208 (11th Cir. 2019) (emphasis

added); see also Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir.

2013) (“[W]here an accurate video recording completely and

clearly contradicts a party’s testimony, that testimony becomes in-

credible. Unfortunately for [the defendant], he does not offer a

video recording of the incident.”). Moreover, we have affirmatively

rejected the argument that one party’s “documentary and medical

evidence” is sufficient to nullify the other’s self-serving testimony

at summary judgment. Sears, 922 F.3d at 1208.

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 11 of 15

24-14130 Opinion of the Court 11

Here, the medical records simply “pit the [doctors’] word

against [Mundt’s] word.” Id. Resolving that credibility dispute

poses a textbook jury issue. See Feliciano, 707 F.3d at 1253. In con-

cluding that the Sheriff’s evidence “directly”—and definitively—

“refuted” Mundt’s testimony, the district court impermissibly as-

sumed the accuracy of the records and weighed the doctors’ cred-

ibility against Mundt’s. See A.L., 900 F.3d at 1289; see also Sears, 922

F.3d at 1208 n.4 (“[W]hether the log is accurate . . . is an[ ] issue for

the jury to resolve.”). It could very well be the case that a jury ul-

timately would not believe Mundt at trial—but that decision still

must be left to the jury. See Miller v. Harget, 458 F.3d 1251, 1256 (11th

Cir. 2006) (“Even if the district court believes that the evidence pre-

sented by one side is of doubtful veracity, it is not proper to grant

summary judgment on the basis of credibility choices.”). Put

simply, a district court may cannot preemptively usurp the jury’s

fact-finding role at summary judgment.

Because Mundt has introduced some competent evidence

demonstrating that he was “cleared” to return to work before

March 14 and that his physical condition “would not have pre-

vented” him from completing the PAT, he has created a genuine

dispute of fact as to whether he is a “qualified individual” under the

ADA. So this element of the prima facie case cannot serve as the

basis for summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff. Still, Mundt

can only proceed to trial on his ADA claim if he has also substanti-

ated that the Sheriff “unlawfully discriminated against him because

of [his] disability.” Reed, 206 F.3d at 1061. We consider that element

next.

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 12 of 15

12 Opinion of the Court 24-14130

B. The “Unlawful Discrimination” Element

An employer unlawfully discriminates against a qualified in-

dividual on the basis of disability when the employer fails to make

“reasonable accommodations” for a disabled individual—unless

the employer “can demonstrate that the accommodation would

impose an undue hardship on the operation” of its business. 42

U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A); see Holly, 492 F.3d at 1262. The plaintiff

bears the initial burden “of identifying an accommodation that

would allow a qualified employee to perform the essential func-

tions of her job” and of “showing that such accommodation is rea-

sonable.” Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1367 (11th Cir. 2000).

If the plaintiff establishes that he was denied reasonable accommo-

dation, the burden shifts to the “employer . . . to show undue hard-

ship.” Id.

Mundt asserts that the Sheriff failed to provide him a reason-

able accommodation because the Sheriff denied his requests for ex-

tended leave until March 14, 2023. The district court rejected this

argument on the ground that Mundt purportedly introduced no

competent evidence suggesting that he would have been able “to

perform the essential functions of his job” by that date. As we ex-

plained, that was incorrect. But we may “affirm for any reason sup-

ported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.”

Williams v. Bd. of Regents, 477 F.3d 1282, 1294 (11th Cir. 2007). And

we are nonetheless satisfied that no reasonable juror, upon taking

the evidence in the light most favorable to Mundt, could conclude

that Mundt was denied a reasonable accommodation.

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 13 of 15

24-14130 Opinion of the Court 13

Although Mundt requested further leave, the ADA does not

require that an employer “accommodate an employee in any man-

ner in which that employee desires.” Stewart v. Happy Herman’s

Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1285 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation

omitted). Rather, an employer meets its obligations under the ADA

as long as it provides some reasonable accommodation, regardless

of whether it is “the accommodation of [the employee’s] choice.”

Id. at 1286 (citation omitted).

Here, the Sheriff was willing to allow Mundt to work in a

different job while he recovered from his injuries. While Mundt

was still on FMLA leave, Tait presented Mundt with an “oppor-

tunity” to take a non-sworn position, a transfer his supervisors

“would absolutely support.” Tait reiterated that offer once

Mundt’s FMLA leave expired, expressing the Department “would

be more than happy to extend [Mundt] a non-sworn position.” And

only two days before he was terminated, Tait again told Mundt that

he could take a non-sworn position as an alternative to resignation.

The ADA expressly recognizes that “reassignment to a va-

cant position” is among the reasonable accommodations available

to an employer. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B). As we have explained in

the comparable context of Title VII, 4 an employer can meet its ob-

ligation to provide a reasonable accommodation by “encourag[ing]

4 “[W]e analyze ADA-discrimination claims under the same framework as Ti-

tle VII . . . discrimination claims . . . [and] often cite case law under [these]

statutes interchangeably.” Todd v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Dist., 998 F.3d 1203, 1215

n.7 (11th Cir. 2021).

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 14 of 15

14 Opinion of the Court 24-14130

its employee to seek another position with the company and

provid[ing] assistance in that search.” Walden v. Ctrs. For Disease

Control & Prevention, 669 F.3d 1277, 1294 (11th Cir. 2012), abrogated

on other grounds by EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S.

768 (2015); see Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506

F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (finding obligation met where em-

ployer “encouraged” employee to apply for other positions and fa-

cilitated interview process).

So too here. By apprising Mundt of the open dispatcher

role, telling him the Department “would absolutely support” the

transfer, and ultimately affirming that the Department “would be

more than happy to extend” that job to Mundt, the Sheriff (through

Tait) complied with his obligations under the ADA to offer a rea-

sonable accommodation. It is of no matter that Mundt would have

needed to “reapply” for this position or that Mundt considered it a

“demotion.” An employer need not guarantee that the employee’s

application to the new role is “successful,” Morrissette-Brown, 506

F.3d at 1324; see Schmidt v. Methodist Hosp. of Ind., Inc., 89 F.3d 342,

344–45 (7th Cir. 1996), and the mere fact that a proposed accom-

modation “may involve some cost to the employee” does not make

that accommodation unreasonable, Morrissette-Brown, 506 F.3d at

1324 n.6 (collecting cases); see also Hedrick v. W. Rsrv. Care Sys., 355

F.3d 444, 457 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[A]n employer’s obligation to reassign

an employee may include an assignment to a position with a lower

grade of pay if the employee meets the job’s qualifications.”).

Mundt offers no evidence suggesting otherwise.

USCA11 Case: 24-14130 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025 Page: 15 of 15

24-14130 Opinion of the Court 15

The Sheriff offered, and Mundt declined, the reasonable ac-

commodation of working in another role while Mundt recovered

from his injuries. Although Mundt was not required to accept that

accommodation, his failure to do so places him outside the protec-

tions of the ADA. See Schmidt, 89 F.3d at 344–45 (citing 29 C.F.R. §

1630.9(d)). We thus conclude that Mundt’s ADA discrimination

claim fails as a matter of law.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s entry of

summary judgment for the Sheriff of Okaloosa County.

AFFIRMED.