Adair v. City of Muskogee
823 F.3d 1297
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Adair, a 32-year Muskogee firefighter and HazMat Director, injured his back during a 2012 training exercise and sought workers’ compensation.
- A functional-capacity evaluation (FCE) and subsequent treating-physician opinions limited Adair’s lifting capacity and concluded he could not safely perform firefighter duties.
- In March 2014 the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Court awarded Adair a permanent partial impairment; the City then encouraged disability retirement and Adair accepted a disability retirement effective April 1, 2014.
- Adair sued under the ADA (disability discrimination and illegal medical-examination provisions) and Oklahoma’s retaliatory-discharge law, alleging constructive discharge and retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City; on appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adair was "regarded as" disabled under the ADAAA | Adair contended the City regarded his lifting restrictions as an impairment and thus discriminated | City and district court relied on pre-ADAAA standards and argued Adair was not disabled/qualified | ADAAA would allow a "regarded as" showing, but Adair still was not a qualified individual, so discrimination claim fails |
| Whether Adair was a qualified individual able to perform essential firefighter functions | Adair claimed his HazMat Director role did not require firefighting and he could perform job duties | City relied on written job descriptions, state regulations, and FCE/doctors showing he could not meet lifting/rescue requirements | Adair could not perform essential functions (lifting/rescue up to ~200 lb); no reasonable accommodation existed; not qualified |
| Whether the FCE was an unlawful medical examination under 42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(4) | Adair argued the FCE was involuntary, not job-related, and not a business necessity | City showed the FCE arose from Adair’s workers’ compensation claim and was tied to ability to perform job duties | FCE was job-related and consistent with business necessity; no ADA violation |
| Whether Adair established a retaliatory-discharge (constructive discharge) under Oklahoma law | Adair pointed to temporal proximity and the Chief’s statements that the workers’ comp award prompted termination/retire-or-be-fired choice | City asserted timing alone insufficient, offered non-retaliatory reason (permanent physical inability) supported by doctors and the workers’ comp finding | Even assuming a prima facie case, City’s legitimate non-retaliatory reason stood; Adair failed to show pretext; retaliatory-discharge claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Den Hartog v. Wasatch Acad., 129 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1997) (summary judgment facts construed in favor of nonmoving party)
- EEOC v. C.R. Eng., Inc., 644 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2011) (employer may conduct certain medical inquiries during employment)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (pre-ADAAA narrowing of "regarded as" disability)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (pre-ADAAA limits on what constitutes substantial limitation)
- Hawkins v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 778 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. 2015) (ADAAA framework for qualified-individual analysis)
- Mason v. Avaya Commc’ns, Inc., 357 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2004) (deference to employer’s judgment on essential functions; employer not required to lower standards)
- Frazier v. Simmons, 254 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2001) (specialized titles do not eliminate essential physical functions when needed)
- Buckner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 760 P.2d 803 (Okla. 1988) (burden-shifting framework for retaliatory-discharge under Oklahoma law)
- Wallace v. Halliburton Co., 850 P.2d 1056 (Okla. 1993) (timing alone insufficient to prove retaliatory discharge; need significant-motivation showing)