Cowing v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
5:15-cv-00129
E.D. Ky.Jan 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles Cowing, a former Lockheed Martin structural aircraft mechanic, injured his back and knee in military service and aggravated those injuries in an on-the-job fall in August 2013.
- Treating physicians imposed permanent work restrictions (limits on lifting, bending, twisting; sit/stand tolerance; limited kneeling/squatting; periodic breaks).
- On returning to work in September 2013, supervisors told Cowing Lockheed would not accommodate his restrictions and placed him on short-term disability; an accommodations committee later met and concluded no accommodation was available.
- Cowing claimed under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KRS Ch. 344) that Lockheed unlawfully excluded him from the workplace and failed to reasonably accommodate him; he also sought transfer to the fab shop as an accommodation.
- The court denied summary judgment as to (1) whether Cowing is disabled and (2) whether he was “otherwise qualified” or reasonably accommodated given factual disputes about essential functions and the interactive process; the court granted summary judgment only as to the fab-shop transfer (no vacancies).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cowing is a "disabled" person under KRS 344 (substantially limits major life activity) | Restrictions show substantial limits on walking, standing, lifting, bending | Not substantially limited — can run, play golf, perform many activities | Material factual dispute exists; summary judgment denied on disability question |
| Whether Cowing was "otherwise qualified" to perform his mechanic job (essential functions) | Could perform or perform with modest accommodation; supervisors testified restrictions would not preclude work | Job requires frequent/heavy lifting and other physical tasks; employer’s essential-functions form shows inability to meet requirements | Genuine dispute about what functions are essential; summary judgment denied |
| Whether Lockheed reasonably accommodated Cowing (including transfer to fab shop) | Employer failed to engage in a good-faith individualized interactive process; fab shop transfer was discussed and feasible | Employer held accommodations meeting and searched for openings; no fab-shop vacancies; administrative roles unavailable | Failure-to-accommodate claim survives except for fab-shop transfer: summary judgment granted as to transfer (no vacant position); other accommodation issues remain for jury |
| Whether damages should be limited for schooling period or emotional distress | Cowing remained available for work while attending school and presented testimony of emotional distress | Plaintiff voluntarily pursued education and has insufficient proof for emotional damages | Court denied limiting order on lost-wage period and declined to bar emotional-distress damages; these remain for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard governing party bearing proof at trial)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidentiary standard for summary judgment — scintilla insufficient)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (burden-shifting and essential-function analysis under disability law)
- Noel v. Elk Brand Mfg. Co., 53 S.W.3d 95 (Kentucky standard for proving disability discrimination)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (employee’s burden to propose reasonable accommodation and interactive-process duty)