James Sharbono v. Northern States Power Company, 902 F.3d 891

Background

Sharbono, a journeyman lineman, lost toes in a 1991 injury and had a medical restriction against wearing steel-toed boots; he worked for Northern States Power ("Northern") from 1993 and full-time from 1997.
Northern’s pre-2008 policy allowed doctor-certified exceptions to safety-toe footwear; a 2008 policy change required ASTM F2413-stamped safety footwear with no exceptions.
Northern sought to accommodate Sharbono (disability consultant, modified boots), but custom boots could not be stamped as ASTM-compliant; Northern would not allow unstamped boots.
Sharbono experienced pain, took intermittent FMLA leave beginning in 2011–2012, and requested accommodation in April 2012; Northern denied the accommodation in August 2012 citing safety and OSHA compliance.
Northern offered a job search and disability retirement; Sharbono elected disability retirement after Northern’s further efforts to obtain a stamped compliant boot failed when manufacturers said ASTM stamping required OSHA observation.
Sharbono sued under the ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act for failure to accommodate; the district court granted summary judgment for Northern, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employer failed to engage in good‑faith interactive process under ADA	Sharbono says Northern delayed, prematurely ceased exploring options, and rigidly relied on OSHA/ASTM rule without seeking alternatives	Northern says it responded to accommodation requests, explored options, relied on industry experts that stamping was not feasible, and offered job search/retirement options	Court held Northern acted in good faith as a matter of law and summary judgment for Northern affirmed
Whether delay in responding violated ADA	Sharbono alleges inexcusable delay after Oct 2011 request	Northern contends earliest supported request was April 2012 and it responded within months	Held Northern’s response timing was reasonable and not evidence of bad faith
Whether employer prematurely abandoned efforts after vendor said stamped boot impossible	Sharbono argues Northern should have sought other solutions	Northern relied on expert vendor info that ASTM stamp couldn’t be obtained for a custom boot and therefore stopped	Held reasonable to stop once objective stamping requirement proved unattainable
Whether relying on regulation/standard shows lack of good faith	Sharbono says Northern’s interpretation of OSHA/ASTM was erroneous and inflexible	Northern says it reasonably sought boots meeting performance standards and did not refuse to consider equivalency absent evidence to support equivalency	Held employer’s reliance insufficient to show lack of good faith in interactive process

Key Cases Cited

Mackey v. Johnson, 868 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment and framing of ADA analysis)
Kobus v. Coll. of St. Scholastica, Inc., 608 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2010) (applying same standards to ADA and state disability statute comparisons)
Peyton v. Fred’s Stores of Ark., Inc., 561 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2009) (interactive process requirement and employer/employee duties)
Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1999) (good faith interactive process standard)
EEOC v. Prod. Fabricators, Inc., 763 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2014) (employer’s obligation tied to an employee’s request for accommodation)
Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc., 178 F.3d 731 (5th Cir. 1999) (timing of employer response and good faith inquiry)
Barry v. Barry, 78 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 1996) (rule against supplementing the appellate record with new evidence)