788 F.3d 296
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Coleman-Lee, as personal representative of Lee's estate, appeals a judgment in an ADA suit by Lee against the District of Columbia.
- Lee, a DC correctional officer, was fired in 2008 for neglect of duty; he claimed diabetes made him disabled.
- The district court instructed the jury under the Sutton rule to consider mitigating measures in assessing disability.
- The jury sided with the District, finding Lee not disabled under the ADA; Lee died after verdict; Coleman-Lee pursued appeal.
- Coleman-Lee's appeal argues the Sutton instruction was misleading; the theory shifted from trial to appeal, and preservation issues arise.
- The Court reviews for plain error due to lack of preservation and affirms the district court's ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Sutton instruction error-preserving? | Coleman-Lee argues instruction misled the jury about eating regimen. | Lee did not preserve the objection below; review is for plain error only. | Plain-error review; no reversible error found. |
| Was the instruction properly tied to mitigating measures? | Eating regimen itself substantially limited eating, making mitigation irrelevant. | Evidence supported considering mitigating effects; instruction appropriate if meals were permitted. | Instruction supported by record; no error. |
| Was Lee's objection preserved or waived for appellate review? | Lee's objection was based on meals not being honored; Coleman-Lee advances new theory. | Objection changed in appeal; preserved standard controls. | Lee's objection not preserved; plain-error standard applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (inquiry into mitigating measures under ADA)
- Ins. Co. v. Baring, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 159 (1873) (plain-error standard for shifting theories on appeal)
- Long v. Howard Univ., 550 F.3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (preservation and plain-error review framework)