Faidley v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc.
889 F.3d 933
8th Cir.2018Background
- Faidley, a long‑time UPS package car driver, had work injuries and hip replacement surgery; his doctor (Dr. Goetz) issued a May 15, 2012 restriction limiting him to an eight‑hour workday.
- Faidley asked UPS to accommodate the eight‑hour restriction for his package car driver position; UPS denied that accommodation as overtime (work beyond 8 hours) is an essential function of that job.
- UPS initiated its ADA interactive process, considered alternative full‑time eight‑hour inside jobs (car washer, porter, preload/airdriver, clerk), and offered part‑time positions which Faidley rejected because of seniority/bidding concerns; he remained on medical leave and later retired.
- UPS’s HR noted a possible feeder driver reassignment (less frequent in/out of vehicle) but did not list it as available; Dr. Goetz’s May 2012 restriction applied to all jobs, and later (Jan 2013) he removed the eight‑hour restriction and issued other lifting limits.
- Faidley brought ADA and state ICRA claims alleging failure to reasonably accommodate and bad‑faith interactive process; district court granted summary judgment for UPS; en banc Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UPS violated the ADA by refusing Faidley’s request to work as a package car driver limited to 8 hours/day | Faidley: an 8‑hour cap is a reasonable accommodation; he usually completed routes in ≤8 hours and could be accommodated without undue hardship | UPS: ability to work overtime (beyond 8 hrs) is an essential function of package car drivers (seasonal spikes, unpredictable loads/weather); 8‑hr cap would prevent performance of essential functions | Held: UPS proved overtime is an essential function; refusing the 8‑hour accommodation did not violate ADA/ICRA |
| Whether UPS failed to offer reasonable reassignment to feeder driver | Faidley: feeder driver was a viable reassignment; HR preliminarily said he appeared capable and positions would open soon | UPS: feeder driver requires up to 9.5 hr days, training, and vacancies; Dr. Goetz’s permanent 8‑hr restriction made Faidley unqualified | Held: Dr. Goetz’s unambiguous 8‑hour restriction and lack of objective evidence made Faidley unqualified for feeder driver as a matter of law |
| Whether UPS unlawfully refused to accommodate Dr. Goetz’s Jan–Mar 2013 temporary 4‑hr/day restriction for combined loader/preloader | Faidley: temporary part‑time work was a reasonable accommodation and a work‑hardening program | UPS: collective bargaining/TAW rules limited temporary alternate work; Faidley could not perform essential functions of available jobs given lifting/time restrictions | Held: UPS did not violate ADA; Faidley failed to show he could perform essential functions of available positions |
| Whether UPS failed to engage in the interactive accommodation process in good faith | Faidley: UPS didn’t genuinely pursue alternatives (e.g., feeder driver) and left him to apply blindly | UPS: engaged in its ADA procedures, met with him twice, identified positions he could perform, offered alternatives and to notify him of openings | Held: UPS participated in the interactive process in good faith; no jury could reasonably find bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Scruggs v. Pulaski Cty., 817 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 2016) (factors for identifying essential job functions)
- Minnihan v. Mediacom Commc’ns Corp., 779 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2015) (employer need only provide reasonable, not employee‑preferred, accommodation)
- Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corp. Servs., Inc., 691 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2012) (elements of ADA prima facie case; definition of qualified individual)
- Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan. City, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2000) (reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation)
- Rehrs v. Iams Co., 486 F.3d 353 (8th Cir. 2007) (considerations for essential functions)
- Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (elements for ADA discrimination claim)
- Vande Zande v. Wis. Dep’t of Admin., 44 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 1995) (employer’s generosity in accommodation does not expand ADA duties)
- Alexander v. Northland Inn, 321 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2003) (employer need not permit employee to perform job functions forbidden by physician)
- Otto v. City of Victoria, 685 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012) (employee’s subjective belief insufficient to create dispute with physician’s restrictions)
- Peyton v. Fred’s Stores of Ark., Inc., 561 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2009) (interactive process jurisprudence)
- Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1999) (requirements for good‑faith interactive process)