Faidley v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
853 F.3d 447
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Faidley, a UPS delivery driver, suffered back/hip injuries and was medically limited to an eight-hour workday in 2012; UPS said delivery drivers must work 9.5 hours and removed him from that role.
- Faidley sought accommodation and proposed either an eight-hour delivery shift or reassignment to less strenuous roles; UPS considered but did not offer him a feeder-driver job because none were open at the time and offered a part-time position that he refused.
- UPS’s HR manager (Vince Blood) completed an accommodation worksheet noting Faidley "preliminarily appeared capable" of feeder-driver essential functions while also recording an eight-hour limit.
- In 2013 Faidley obtained a combined pre-loader/loader position but pain forced further restrictions; UPS declined reduced-schedule work because he had exhausted temporary alternative-work program time and no full‑time positions fitting restrictions were available.
- Faidley filed ADA and Iowa Civil Rights Act claims for failure to accommodate (2012 and 2013) and alleged retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to UPS. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faidley was a "qualified individual" in 2012 for feeder-driver role | Faidley: HR’s note that he "preliminarily appeared capable" and evidence feeder-driver openings would soon exist create a fact question | UPS: feeder-driver essential function required 9.5-hour days, and Faidley was limited to 8 hours, so he is unqualified | Court: Reversed district court — factual dispute exists about qualification for feeder-driver position; remand for 2012 claim |
| Whether UPS’s actions in 2012 amounted to an adverse employment action | Faidley: being offered only part-time work that cut seniority/benefits was an adverse action | UPS: offering part-time work was not an adverse action (district court view) | Court: There is a genuine issue — denial of full-time roles and loss of seniority/benefits can be adverse; supports 2012 claim |
| Whether Faidley’s 2013 discrimination claim survives (qualified/interactive process) | Faidley: UPS failed to accommodate his 2013 restrictions and did not properly engage in the interactive process | UPS: No available full-time job fit restrictions; UPS met, considered positions, and made good-faith efforts | Held: Affirmed — 2013 claim fails; Faidley was not shown qualified for available roles and UPS made good-faith interactive efforts |
| Whether 2013 retaliation claim proceeds | Faidley: alleged retaliation for 2012 complaint | UPS: disputed; district court dismissed | Held: Waived on appeal (insufficient briefing); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McPherson v. O’Reilly Auto., Inc., 491 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard review)
- Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corp. Servs., Inc., 691 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2012) (ADA required reasonable accommodations)
- Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (elements for ADA discrimination claim)
- Minnihan v. Mediacom Commc’ns Corp., 779 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2015) (interactive-process standards; failure to engage may show bad faith)
- Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan. City, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2000) (four-part test for employer failure to engage in interactive process)