Hawkins v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc.
778 F.3d 877
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Hawkins was a long‑time facility supervisor at Schwan’s Home Service (SHS); the written job description required DOT eligibility, medical certification, and listed driving‑related qualifications and physical abilities.
- Hawkins experienced serious heart problems in 2010 (including a minor stroke and pacemaker), failed a DOT medical recertification on June 21, 2010, and was placed on unpaid leave and told to obtain DOT certification or find a non‑DOT position.
- Hawkins signed a resignation form stating he was "forced to quit for medical reason," applied for SSDI (denied), and later sued SHS under the ADAAA and Oklahoma law claiming disability discrimination and related torts.
- The district court granted summary judgment for SHS, concluding Hawkins was not a "qualified individual" because he could not obtain DOT certification (an essential function), and alternatively relied on estoppel from his SSA representations.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed on the ground that Hawkins failed to prove he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the facility‑supervisor job (driving DOT trucks), applying EEOC factors and circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driving DOT‑regulated trucks (and DOT certification) is an essential function of the facility‑supervisor position | Hawkins: driving was not an essential function; job duties are supervising/coordinating, not routinely driving | SHS: employer judgment, written job description, past practice, small staff and DOT rules make driving essential | Court: Driving (and thus DOT certification) was an essential function; summary judgment for SHS |
| Who bears the burden of proving a function is essential at summary judgment | Hawkins: employer should bear persuasive burden because of superior knowledge | SHS: employer must produce evidence of essential functions; plaintiff retains ultimate burden to persuade | Court: Employer must produce evidence (EEOC factors) but plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuasion; district court properly required Hawkins to persuade |
| Whether the court impermissibly conflated job qualifications and essential functions | Hawkins: court confused uniform enforcement of a qualification with essential functions | SHS: DOT certification is job‑related, uniformly enforced, and mandated by federal law for driving CMVs | Court: No error—ability to operate DOT vehicles is an essential function and legal requirement makes DOT certification necessary |
| Whether estoppel based on Hawkins’s SSA statements barred his ADAAA claim | Hawkins: estoppel improper unless based on sworn declarations | SHS: SSA statements inconsistent with ADAAA claim support estoppel | Court: Did not decide estoppel (alternative ground); affirmed on failure to establish a prima facie ADAAA case regarding qualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowe v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 649 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Davidson v. Am. Online, Inc., 337 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (elements of disparate‑treatment ADA claim and role of qualification inquiry)
- Wells v. Shalala, 228 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2000) (incorporating EEOC factors in essential‑functions analysis)
- Mason v. Avaya Commc’ns, Inc., 357 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2004) (deference to employer judgment when job‑related and uniformly enforced)
- Hennagir v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2009) (weighing consequences and amount of time in essential‑function inquiry)
- Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999) (federal DOT fitness regulations preclude individualized exceptions when job requires driving)