Keith Powers v. Usf Holland, Incorp
667 F.3d 815
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Powers injured his back working for Holland, returned as a road driver, and worked without incident for two years.
- In 2004 Powers switched to a city driver position to assist with family needs; dock work caused back problems and he requested a return to road driving.
- The collective bargaining agreement allowed only one transfer per year, so Holland denied the request to switch back.
- Powers took medical leave and later sought to return with a medical release limiting dock work; Holland refused without a full, unrestricted release and enforced a 100% healed policy.
- Powers sued Holland under the ADA for disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, and per se discrimination; the district court granted Holland summary judgment on ADA claims.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held Powers is not disabled under the ADA, and the 100% healed policy does not establish a ‘regarded as’ disability; affirmed summary judgment for Holland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Powers actually disabled under the ADA? | Powers is substantially limited in working. | Powers is not substantially limited in working. | No; Powers is not disabled. |
| Is Powers regarded as disabled under the ADA? | Holland's 100% healed policy shows it regarded Powers as disabled. | There is no evidence Holland regarded him as disabled across a class or broad range of jobs. | No; policy alone does not establish ‘regarded as’ disabled. |
| Does the 100% healed policy itself amount to per se discrimination when the employee is not actually disabled? | Policy discriminates against disabled or purportedly disabled employees. | Policy is not unlawful without proof of disability or class-wide impact. | No; without disability, per se claim fails. |
| Were the ADA claims properly resolved by summary judgment given Powers' asserted arguments? | The district court misapplied the ADA standards. | There is no genuine issue of material fact about disability; Holland is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Yes; court affirmed summary judgment for Holland. |
Key Cases Cited
- Best v. Shell Oil Co., 107 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 1997) (truck driver as a class of jobs; substantial limitation shown by broad evidence)
- Baulos v. Roadway Express, Inc., 139 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1998) (not disabled by inability to perform sleeper-duty truck driving; must show broad class of jobs)
- Homeyer v. Stanley Tulchin Assoc., Inc., 91 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 1996) (impairment must substantially limit employment generally, not a single job)
- DePaoli v. Abbott Lab., 140 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1998) (burden to prove ADA disability rests on plaintiff)
- Schneider Nat., Inc., 481 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 2007) (employer can be more risk-averse; not per se disability without broader impact)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court, 1999) (limits of impairment and disability determinations; 490-491 discuss broader standard)
- Dillon v. Mountain Coal Co., LLC, 569 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2009) (100% healed policy insufficient to prove disability without class of jobs evidence)