Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

SHERITA JAMIR SMITH PLAINTIFF

No. 4:25-cv-1066-DPM

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, d/b/a

University of Arkansas for Medical

Science DEFENDANT

ORDER

Smith filed an amended complaint with more details supporting

her wrongful termination claim under the American with Disabilities

Act. Doc. 6. The Court must screen it. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

On 27 May 2025, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

hired Smith to work as an access coordinator II. Doc. 6 at 9. The job

required a forty-hour week, Monday through Friday. It involved

continuous sitting, and responsibility for scheduling and coordinating

appointments, as well as handling patient pre-registration. Doc. 6 at 18-

19.

The day after she was hired, Smith notified UAMS that she would

need ADA accommodations due to a Lupus diagnosis as well as a

chronic back and pain disorder. She sought: (1) frequent breaks to

stand and stretch for ten to fifteen minutes every two hours; (2) no

more than six work hours a day; and (3) approval to attend regular

doctors’ appointments. Doc. 6 at 18. UAMS denied Smith’s request for

accommodation. It explained that it could not accommodate a thirty-

hour work week for that position. Doc. 6 at 19-20. UAMS gave her

thirty days to find an alternative position within the UAMS system. It

also assigned Smith a talent acquisition recruiter to assist her with her

search. When she failed to secure an alternative position, she was fired

on 14 July 2025. Doc. 6 at 45. Smith filed a timely charge of

discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;

and she was issued a right-to-sue letter on 16 July 2025. Doc. 6 at 5-14.

Smith hasn’t pleaded a plausible ADA claim. She wasn’t qualified

for her position, which required the ability to work a forty-hour week.

In essence, Smith asked UAMS to create a part-time job for her as an

accommodation. In order to qualify for ADA protections, a person

must be able to perform a job’s essential functions, with or without

reasonable accommodations. Hatchett v. Philander Smith College, 251

F.3d 670, 674 (8th Cir. 2001). That said, while a part-time schedule may

be reasonable in some circumstances, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9), the ADA

doesn’t require an employer to reallocate essential functions or hire

additional employees to complete those tasks. Hatchett, 251 F.3d at 675.

UAMS explained to Smith that, while it could accommodate her

requests for breaks and leave for doctors’ appointments, it would be

unable to reduce her position from forty hours to thirty hours. Doc. 6

at 19. As aresult, she was not qualified for the position.

_2-

Smith has failed to state a claim. Her motion to appoint counsel,

Doc. 9, is denied as moot. The summonses, which were issued as a

matter of course once the Court granted in forma pauperis status, are

quashed.

So Ordered.

MPG thoall p-

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge

[2% Mesemten _202.5-

-3-