Kilcrease v. Domenico Transportation Co.
828 F.3d 1214
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mark Kilcrease, an AML survivor and CDL holder, applied in Oct 2009 for a truck-driving job with Domenico; the job posting required a Class A CDL and three years of verifiable mountain-driving experience (defined as routes with 6% grades sustained for one mile).
- Kilcrease disclosed no recent commercial driving since 2002 and indicated he was in remission; he listed three years of mountain-driving experience on the pre-application but later conceded he miscalculated and actually had about 1.5 years.
- Domenico declined to consider him; Kilcrease says he was told the company’s insurer would not cover him because of his prior AML diagnosis; Kilcrease then filed an EEOC charge alleging ADA discrimination and retaliation and received a right-to-sue notice.
- Domenico moved for summary judgment arguing Kilcrease was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because he lacked the three years of mountain-driving experience and that its hiring decision predated any protected activity, so no retaliation claim could lie.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Domenico on both discrimination and retaliation claims; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding Kilcrease failed to show (1) he met the Mountain-Driving Requirement (an essential job function) and (2) a causal nexus for retaliation because the adverse decision preceded his ADA complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Kilcrease's Argument | Domenico's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kilcrease was a "qualified individual" under the ADA (i.e., met the three-year mountain-driving requirement) | Kilcrease contended he had sufficient mountain-driving experience (claimed 3 years on application; disputed interpretation of what counts as mountain driving) | Domenico argued Kilcrease conceded he lacked three years and introduced objective definition (6% grade sustained 1 mile) which Kilcrease did not meet | Held: Kilcrease lacked the required three years; he admitted only ~1.5 years, so he was not a qualified individual and discrimination claim fails |
| Whether consideration of objective job qualifications at prima facie stage was improper (relying on Kenworthy) | Kilcrease argued Kenworthy bars assessing qualifications at prima facie stage and that Domenico applied the requirement subjectively/inconsistently | Domenico argued plaintiffs must present credible evidence of objective qualifications; employer may proffer objective requirements and evidence they were uniformly enforced | Held: Court may consider objective, job-related qualifications at prima facie; Kenworthy does not bar this; no evidence Domenico applied the requirement subjectively |
| Whether the Mountain-Driving Requirement was an essential job function and uniformly enforced | Kilcrease claimed requirement was nonessential or not uniformly enforced (pointing to hires he says lacked the experience) | Domenico presented evidence the requirement came from job posting, related to safety/business necessity, and was applied to contemporaneous hires | Held: Requirement was essential; Kilcrease failed to show Domenico hired drivers who did not meet it or that employer’s judgment was unreasonable |
| Whether Kilcrease stated a retaliation claim (causal connection/timing) | Kilcrease argued Domenico’s refusal to reconsider after his ADA complaint constituted a second adverse act/retaliation | Domenico showed the decision not to hire was made before Kilcrease mentioned the ADA; no change in course after complaint | Held: No causal connection—adverse decision was made prior to Kilcrease’s protected activity, so retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. Am. Online, Inc., 337 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (elements of ADA discrimination prima facie case)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Kenworthy v. Conoco, Inc., 979 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir. 1992) (district court may not credit employer’s explanation for adverse action at prima facie stage but plaintiff must still present evidence of qualifications)
- EEOC v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must present credible evidence of objective qualifications)
- Tate v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 268 F.3d 989 (10th Cir. 2001) (relevant inquiry on qualifications and essential functions)
- Hawkins v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 778 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. 2015) (factors for assessing essential job functions; deference to employer judgment)
- Sabourin v. Univ. of Utah, 676 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2012) (retaliation requires causal link; adverse action made before protected conduct cannot be retaliation)