930 F.3d 1015
8th Cir.2019Background
- Heuton, born without a left hand (forearm stump ~3–4 inches below elbow), applied for an entry-level assembler position on Ford’s moving assembly line at KCAP.
- After disclosing his condition, Ford’s medical staff requested doctor’s notes; Heuton submitted notes indicating he could not grip with his left upper extremity but was otherwise adapted and cleared to work.
- Ford marked Heuton’s medical form “Left hand: No gripping” and labor relations (Ashlie O’Reilly) noted most KCAP jobs require two hands and KCAP could not accommodate a one-hand restriction, and Ford declined to hire him.
- Heuton sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) for disability discrimination (regarded-as) and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for Ford.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: it held Heuton failed to prove Ford regarded him as substantially limited in the major life activity of working (i.e., unable to perform a class or broad range of jobs), and Heuton waived or failed to meaningfully pursue several alternative arguments (direct evidence, collateral estoppel, and retaliation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heuton was "disabled" under MHRA via regarded-as theory | Heuton contends Ford regarded him as having an impairment (no left hand) that substantially limited employment | Ford says any belief was limited to inability to perform the specific assembler job, not a class/broad range of jobs | Court held Heuton did not show Ford regarded him as substantially limited in the major life activity of working (class or broad range standard applies) |
| Whether inability to perform a particular assembly job satisfies "broad range/class of jobs" standard | Heuton argues KCAP’s uniform no-grip practice effectively excluded him from ~700 assembly jobs | Ford argues the notes show only the specific job’s demands were unmet, not other job classes | Court held inability to perform one particular job is insufficient; evidence showed Ford thought he could not do that job, not a class/broad range |
| Whether Ford is precluded by prior Peterson decision (offensive collateral estoppel) | Heuton argues Peterson already resolved the regarded-as issue against Ford | Ford argues issue-specific preclusion was not raised below and Heuton waived it | Court found Heuton waived offensive collateral estoppel by not timely raising Peterson in district court; argument rejected |
| Retaliation claim viability | Heuton claims retaliation based on Ford’s request for a doctor’s note and hiring decision | Ford contends there is no adverse action causally tied to a protected complaint; district court found no evidence of retaliation | Court declined to address on merits (Heuton failed to develop arguments/cite controlling Missouri authority); retaliation claim not sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007) (defines MHRA disability/regarded-as standard and "class or broad range of jobs" test)
- Knutson v. Ag Processing, Inc., 394 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2005) (inability to perform one specific job is not a substantial limitation on working)
- Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999) (distinguishing inability to perform a job with a particular requirement from inability to perform a class of jobs)
- Markham v. Wertin, 861 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2017) (elements of MHRA employment-discrimination claim)
- Epps v. City of Pine Lawn, 353 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard and de novo review guidance)
- Gipson v. KAS Snacktime Co., 171 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1999) (federal discrimination law may be applied under MHRA when consistent with Missouri law)