910 F.3d 368
8th Cir.2018Background
- Denson broke his hip in 2010, had a total hip replacement, and was medically restricted to clerical/sedentary work with no lifting; Social Security found him disabled in 2012.
- Steak ‘n Shake hired Denson in November 2014 as a fountain operator, a job requiring standing, bending, walking, and lifting up to 30 pounds; Denson initially told the employer he could lift 15–30 pounds.
- Denson fell twice at work in early 2015, received workers’ compensation physical therapy, and was examined by Dr. David King in January–February 2016; Dr. King ultimately concluded Denson had reached maximum medical improvement and adopted the surgeon’s restriction to sedentary work with no lifting.
- After Dr. King’s final restrictions, Steak ‘n Shake removed Denson from the schedule for a safety evaluation and later terminated his employment.
- Denson filed EEOC and state claims alleging ADA disability discrimination and Missouri workers’ compensation retaliation; the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter and Denson sued in federal court. The district court granted Steak ‘n Shake summary judgment on the ADA claim and deemed the retaliation claim waived because Denson did not respond; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Denson was a "qualified individual" under the ADA | Denson argued he could perform the essential functions of the fountain operator or could be accommodated via transfer to host, dishroom, or prep positions | Steak ‘n Shake argued Denson’s permanent medical restrictions barred him from performing essential job functions and he was not qualified | Court held Denson was not a qualified individual because his medical restrictions prevented performance of essential functions; summary judgment for employer |
| Whether employer was required to accommodate by transferring Denson to other in-area positions | Denson argued transfers to host/dishroom/prep would accommodate him | Steak ‘n Shake argued those positions required standing and thus were not compatible with Denson’s sedentary restriction | Court held transfers would not be reasonable accommodations because those jobs were not sedentary and Denson conceded they required prolonged standing |
| Whether employee’s subjective belief about ability to work is sufficient | Denson relied on his belief he could perform duties despite restrictions | Steak ‘n Shake relied on medical restrictions and precedent that employee’s physician’s restrictions control | Court held subjective belief is irrelevant; ADA does not require permitting work contrary to physician restrictions |
| Whether retaliation claim was preserved for summary judgment | Denson did not respond to employer’s summary judgment arguments on retaliation | Steak ‘n Shake argued the claim was waived | Court affirmed the district court’s deeming the retaliation claim waived for failure to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Barstad v. Murray Cty., 420 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment review standard)
- Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (elements of ADA prima facie case and definition of "qualified individual")
- Alexander v. Northland Inn, 321 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2003) (employer not required to permit employee to perform duties physician has forbidden)
- Heaser v. Toro Co., 247 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2001) (definition of ability to perform essential functions with or without accommodation)
- Duty v. Norton–Alcoa Proppants, 293 F.3d 481 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussion of ADA discrimination elements)
- Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet-Wilmington Corp., 894 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2018) (failure-to-accommodate claim fails when plaintiff is not a qualified individual)