Justin Guenther v. Griffin Construction Company
846 F.3d 979
8th Cir.2017Background
- Semmie John Guenther, Jr. worked for Griffin Construction and was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer; he was fired after requesting leave for radiation treatment.
- Guenther filed a timely EEOC charge alleging disability discrimination under the ADA; he died while the charge was pending.
- About 22 months after termination and 20 months after the EEOC charge, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter finding reasonable cause; the estate filed suit for compensatory damages under Title I of the ADA and an Arkansas state civil-rights statute.
- Griffin moved to dismiss, arguing the ADA claim abated at Guenther’s death and the Arkansas survival statute should control; the district court agreed and entered judgment for Griffin.
- The estate appealed; the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding federal common law (not Arkansas survivorship law) governs whether ADA compensatory claims survive and that such claims survive the plaintiff’s death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ADA claim for compensatory damages survives the plaintiff's death | The estate: ADA compensatory claims survive; federal common law should allow the estate to maintain the suit | Griffin: Survivorship is governed by state law (Arkansas statute) so the claim abated at death | The Eighth Circuit held ADA compensatory claims survive under federal common law and reversed dismissal |
| Whether survivability is governed by state law or a uniform federal rule | Estate: Federal interests and ADA's national remedial purpose require a uniform federal rule | Griffin: State survivorship law should be incorporated (no conflict with ADA); analogies to § 1988 and statutes of limitations support using state law | Court held federal common law governs survivability for ADA compensatory claims and declined to adopt Arkansas law as the rule of decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (holding survivability of federal claims is a federal-law question)
- Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (survivorship under § 1983; state law may apply where § 1988 directs)
- United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (framework for when to adopt state law versus federal common law)
- Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (presumption for incorporating state law in some federal contexts)
- Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (creating a uniform federal rule under the ADA)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (need for uniform federal standards in employment discrimination law)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (appropriateness of federal rules where national uniformity is required)
- Clearfield Tr. Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (establishing uniform federal rule where federal interests require it)
- Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U.S. 76 (historical federal common-law approach to survivorship)
- Gaona v. Town & Country Credit, 324 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. decision applying state statute of limitations to ADA claims)
- Parkerson v. Carrouth, 782 F.2d 1449 (8th Cir. § 1983 survivorship precedent)