Herman Nunies v. Hie Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 837

Background

Nunies worked as a full-time delivery driver for HIE whose duties required frequent lifting (50+ lbs); he sought a transfer to a part-time warehouse job in mid-June 2013.
Nunies says the transfer was approved June 14; he informed supervisors on June 17 that he had left-shoulder pain; on June 19 HIE rescinded the transfer and told him to resign, citing budget/position elimination.
HIE subsequently advertised the same part‑time warehouse position; Nunies obtained a doctor’s note on June 20 restricting work until July 5 and later was diagnosed with a supraspinatus tendinitis/partial tear.
Nunies sued under the ADA and Hawaii law alleging disability discrimination; the district court granted HIE summary judgment, finding Nunies neither “regarded‑as” nor physically disabled under the ADA.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and held the district court applied the pre‑ADAAA regarded‑as standard in error and also erred in deciding as a matter of law that Nunies did not meet the ADA’s physical‑impairment prong.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nunies is "regarded as" disabled under the ADAAA	Nunies: HIE rescinded the transfer because it knew of his shoulder injury; timing and the later ad support causation	HIE: Nunies’ report of shoulder pain is insufficient; any impairment was transitory/minor; employer did not subjectively believe he was substantially limited	Reversed: Under the ADAAA, plaintiff need not show employer thought he was substantially limited; factual disputes (timing, rescission, ad) create triable issue; employer bears burden on transitory/minor defense
Whether Nunies has a physical disability under ADA §12102(1)(A)	Nunies: Shoulder pain limited lifting and working (stabbing pain above chest height; lifting restriction persisted into 2014)	HIE: Continued work shows no substantial limitation	Reversed: Evidence could show substantial limitation of lifting/working given regulations construing “substantially limits” broadly
Whether HRS §378‑35 (state workers’ remedy) bars federal ADA claim	Nunies: ADA claim is independent of state workers’ compensation/rehire remedy	HIE: State statute precludes these claims when injury arises at work	Affirmed in part/Rejected: District court correctly denied summary judgment that ADA claim is barred; state statute does not preempt ADA remedies
Scope of review / waiver of arguments	Nunies: Raised regarded‑as on appeal; also argued physical prong at hearing	HIE: Arguments were waived for not properly raising below or on appeal	Court: Reached merits for both prongs because issues were raised sufficiently or present pure questions of law

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Washington, 853 F.3d 946 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (elements of ADA prima facie case)
Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.) (pre‑ADAAA regarded‑as standard requiring subjective belief)
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct.) (pre‑ADAAA interpretation of disability)
Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Sup. Ct.) (pre‑ADAAA substantial‑limitation analysis)
Rohr v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 555 F.3d 850 (9th Cir.) (ADAAA expands scope of ADA coverage)
Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir.) (causation may be inferred from timing)
Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.) (misleading employer reasons can indicate pretext)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct.) (employer misrepresentation can support inference of discrimination)
Hutton v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 273 F.3d 884 (9th Cir.) (employer bears burden to prove transitory and minor defense)
Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Soc’y, 936 P.2d 643 (Haw. 1997) (Hawaii applies ADA framework to HRS §378‑2)
Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corp., 951 P.2d 507 (Haw. Ct. App.) (statutory interpretation of HRS workers’ remedies)