309 F. Supp. 3d 714
E.D. Mo.2018Background
- Jeremy Heuton was born without a left hand (has an appendage below the elbow) and applied for work on Ford’s constantly moving assembly line; he currently works in assembly elsewhere.
- Heuton admitted speed/agility limitations and told the testing proctor his testing “may take longer.” He barely met Ford’s timed standards.
- Ford rejected Heuton’s application based on perceived inability to grasp/finger necessary for the moving assembly line.
- Heuton sued in Missouri court under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) alleging disability discrimination (including perceived disability) and retaliation; he did not allege he is actually unable to work in a broad range of jobs.
- The court applied pre-2008 Supreme Court ADA precedent (Sutton/Toyota) as controlling for MHRA because Missouri law had not been amended to reflect post-2008 ADA revisions.
- The court granted summary judgment for Ford, finding Heuton failed to present submissible proof that Ford perceived him as unable to work in a ‘‘broad range of jobs’’ (required to qualify as disabled under Sutton/Toyota); retaliation claim also lacked proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heuton was a "disabled" person under MHRA via perceived disability | Heuton argued Ford mistakenly perceived him as unable to perform the moving line job; that perception was sufficient for MHRA protection | Ford argued any perception was limited to the specific job and not to inability to work in a broad range of jobs, so MHRA protection does not apply under Sutton/Toyota | Court held Heuton failed to show Ford perceived him as unable to work in a broad range of jobs; no submissible perceived-disability claim under Sutton/Toyota |
| Whether employer’s subjective belief at time of hire can be proven to show perceived broad incapacity | Heuton relied on later expert testimony and evidence about limitations to show perceived broad incapacity | Ford noted absence of evidence that hiring officials subjectively believed Heuton could not perform many other jobs | Court held plaintiff must show employer’s subjective contemporaneous belief of broad unemployability; he did not meet that extraordinarily difficult proof burden |
| Whether Missouri law diverges from pre-2008 federal ADA standards (i.e., Sutton/Toyota) | Heuton contended post-amendment ADA interpretations might govern MHRA or Missouri cases like Bowolak could support a narrower showing | Ford argued Missouri law follows pre-2008 federal ADA precedent because Missouri had not amended its statute to adopt the post-2008 changes | Court applied Sutton/Toyota to MHRA and found no persuasive argument that Missouri law requires a different analysis |
| Whether Heuton stated a retaliation claim by alleging Ford asked for a doctor’s note and failed to hire him | Heuton alleged the request for a doctor’s note and failure to hire were retaliatory acts | Ford argued requesting medical documentation and declining to hire are not shown to be retaliatory conduct under MHRA without evidence of opposition activity or causation | Court found no evidence of retaliatory motive or adverse action amounting to retaliation and granted summary judgment for Ford |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (holding disability for "working" requires inability to perform a broad range of jobs)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (adopting Sutton test for "major life activity" of working)
- Ollie v. Titan Tire Corp., 336 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2003) (employer’s expressed belief that plaintiff could not perform a class of jobs supported perceived-disability finding)
- Chalfant v. Titan Distribution, Inc., 475 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2007) (evidence employer believed plaintiff could not perform a substantial percentage of jobs supported a submissible perceived-disability claim)
- Mellon v. Fed. Express Corp., 239 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court rejection of perceived-disability where employer evidence did not show inability to work in a broad range of jobs)
- E.E.O.C. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 853 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2017) (discussing difficulty of proving employer’s subjective belief of broad unemployability)
- Milholland v. Sumner County Bd. of Educ., 569 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2009) (discussing effect of 2008 ADA amendments on Sutton/Toyota analysis)