Fahey v. Twin City Fan Companies
994 F. Supp. 2d 1064
D.S.D.2014Background
- Fahey (monocular — blind in right eye since 2007) applied in Oct 2010 to Twin City Fan for any full‑time day production position; employer offered him a parts expediter job conditional on drug test and physical.
- Post‑offer physical (Dr. Edinger) reported no vision in right eye, recommended accommodations and safer workstation; also noted preexisting DJD/migratory arthritis.
- Twin City Fan rescinded the conditional offer based solely on Fahey’s monocular vision, concluding he could not safely operate a forklift and could not be accommodated; the employer did not contact Fahey or the examining physician for further information.
- Twin City Fan normally retains applications for one year and notifies applicants when positions open; it did not retain or notify Fahey after rescinding his offer.
- Fahey proved he can maneuver safely, has prior forklift experience, uses compensatory techniques, and proposed accommodations (e.g., side mirror). He obtained other employment; he sought ADA disparate‑treatment and reasonable‑accommodation relief and an SDCL 20‑13‑10 state‑law claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fahey is a "disabled" person under the ADA | Fahey’s blindness in right eye substantially limits seeing/peripheral vision | N/A (not disputed) | Court: Yes — monocular vision is a disability under ADA |
| Whether Fahey was a qualified individual for parts expediter (direct threat) | Fahey had requisite skills, past forklift experience, compensatory strategies; employer failed to do individualized inquiry or consider accommodations | Twin City Fan: monocular vision posed a direct threat (safety risk operating forklift) | Court: Fahey was qualified; Twin City Fan failed to conduct individualized, objective inquiry and did not prove direct threat |
| Whether employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation | Fahey proposed feasible accommodations (mirror, workstation adjustments) and employer did not engage in any interactive process | Twin City Fan offered no evidence it considered accommodations or that proposed fixes were unreasonable | Court: Employer failed to engage in interactive process and failed to accommodate; Fahey succeeded on accommodation claim |
| Whether rescinding offer and not retaining application constituted adverse actions and discriminatory treatment | Rescission and deviation from standard practice (not keeping application) discriminated because motivated by disability | Twin City Fan claimed it presumed Fahey wouldn’t want work there; maintained safety concern | Court: Both rescission and failure to follow standard notification practice were adverse actions motivated by disability; plaintiff prevailed |
| Damages — compensatory and punitive | Fahey sought back pay, emotional damages, punitive damages | Twin City Fan disputed amounts and argued lack of malice for punitive damages | Court: Awarded $58,930 compensatory (including past wages and $25,000 emotional); prejudgment interest to be calculated; punitive damages denied (no malice/reckless indifference) |
Key Cases Cited
- Duello v. Buchanan Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 628 F.3d 968 (8th Cir.) (elements of ADA disparate‑treatment claim)
- Burroughs v. City of Springfield, 163 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 1998) (employer may rely on objective medical evidence for safety removal)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (direct‑threat inquiry must be individualized and based on objective evidence; later evidence cannot retroactively justify decision)
- E.E.O.C. v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 477 F.3d 561 (8th Cir.) (burden on employer for direct‑threat defense; need for individualized analysis)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) (definition and scope of direct threat defense)
- Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir.) (plaintiff need only make facial showing that accommodation is possible; burden shifts to employer)
- Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761 (8th Cir.) (elements and employer duty to provide reasonable accommodation)
- Convergys Customer Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir.) (employer must engage in interactive process to determine accommodations)
- Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corp. Serv., Inc., 691 F.3d 925 (8th Cir.) (failure to engage in interactive process not per se liability but is strong evidence against employer)
- Christensen v. Titan Distrib., Inc., 481 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir.) (punitive damages in ADA require malice or reckless indifference)
- Canny v. Dr. Pepper/Seven‑Up Bottling Grp., Inc., 439 F.3d 894 (8th Cir.) (circumstances where punitive damages are inappropriate)