Jeffrey Neely v. PSEG Texas Limited Partnership, e
735 F.3d 242
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Neely, a control-room operator for PSEG Texas, was suspended and terminated after verbal altercations with supervisors.
- He was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder severe without psychosis.
- Neely sued PSEG under the ADA, Title VII, and FMLA; the district court dismissed the FMLA claim and Neely dropped his Title VII retaliation claim before trial.
- The case proceeded to a jury on disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure-to-accommodate claims under the ADA.
- During trial, Neely objected to two predicate jury questions asking if he was a 'qualified individual with a disability'; the jury answered No to both predicates and to retaliation.
- The district court’s submission of special verdict questions and the ADAAA-era definitions were challenged on appeal, which the Fifth Circuit now sustains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether predicate question on disability qualification was proper | Neely argues ADAAA requires no disability predicate. | PSEG contends predicate properly framed to present discrimination issue. | No reversible error; predicate properly presented |
| Whether ADA Amendments Act changes invalidated the predicate question | ADAAA broadens coverage; predicate should not hinge on disability. | Changes harmonize terminology without invalidating predicate questions. | No abuse of discretion; instructions conform to ADAAA |
| Whether third predicate question for accommodation was legally correct | Question misstates law post-ADAAA; risks confusing jurors. | Question accurately reflects current failure-to-accommodate elements. | No reversible error; interrogation adequately presented issues |
| Whether jury instructions properly defined 'disability' and 'qualified individual' for ADA claims | Definitions do not align with post-ADAAA interpretation. | Definitions mirror ADAAA changes and reflect doctrine for discrimination and accommodation. | Definitions properly conformed; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- LeBoeuf v. K-Mart Corp., 888 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1989) (test for reviewing special-verdict questions)
- C.P. Interests, Inc. v. Cal. Pools, Inc., 238 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2001) (two-part test for reversible error)
- Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 1995) (substantial doubt standard for jury guidance)
- Mayo v. Borden, Inc., 784 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1986) (guides assessment of instructional impact)
- Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 508 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2007) (reversal only if error could have affected outcome)
- EEOC v. Manville Sales Corp., 27 F.3d 1089 (5th Cir. 1994) (analysis of pre- and post-ADAAA standards for discrimination claims)
- Atkins v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2011) (post-ADA framework for disability discrimination)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court 2002) (definitional scope of 'substantially limits' in disability law)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court 1999) (regarded-as and substantial limitation framework)