Lee v. Government of the District of Columbia, 19 F. Supp. 3d 281

Plaintiff Joseph Lee, a DC corrections officer with Type II diabetes, alleged the District of Columbia failed to reasonably accommodate his diabetes and terminated him for disability-related reasons under the ADA.
The District presented evidence that Lee’s diabetes required a prescribed meal plan and that missing meals could cause grogginess or fatigue, but the record showed Lee ate three meals outside his shift and could snack during work.
Lee testified his schedule involved three meals nightly with a late snack, but he forgot a snack on the night of March 27, 2008, leading to his termination for neglect of duty.
A jury found Lee was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA, and Lee moved for a new trial under Rule 59(a) arguing weight of the evidence and an improper jury instruction on “substantially limiting.”
The Court held a trial between July 15–19, 2013, and issued a written memorandum denying Lee’s motion for a new trial.
Key issue is whether Lee’s diabetes substantially limits eating, considering mitigating measures and trial evidence of his regimen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence	Lee contends the record shows his diabetes substantially limits eating beyond mitigation.	DC argues evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that Lee’s eating was not substantially limited.	No; verdict not against weight of evidence
Whether the jury instruction on 'substantially limiting' was improper	Instruction prejudiced Lee by presupposing disabling effects despite lack of record support.	Evidence of mitigating measures justified the instruction; no error.	Not improper; instruction allowed consideration of mitigating measures
Whether the district court properly applied the standard for granting a new trial	New trial warranted due to weight of the evidence and instruction errors.	No manifest error or miscarriage of justice; discretion to deny.	Denied; no clear miscarriage of justice

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (disability determination is not solely based on label; consider effects and mitigating measures)
Kapche v. Holder, 677 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (diabetes severity and treatment regimen affect disability analysis)
Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (severe diabetes with onerous daily management supports disability finding)
Griffin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011) (diabetes with modest dietary adjustments often not a disability)
Collado v. United Parcel Serv., Co., 419 F.3d 1143 (11th Cir. 2005) (no substantial limitation on eating based on self-monitoring capacity)
Oswalt v. Sara Lee Corp., 74 F.3d 91 (5th Cir. 1996) (factors for substantial limitation include severity, duration, and mitigating measures)
Mejia v. Cook County, 650 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2011) (trial judge weighs credibility and strength of evidence in weight-of-the-evidence review)
Martinez v. District of Columbia, 503 F. Supp. 2d 353 (D.D.C. 2007) (new trial standard requires manifest error or miscarriage of justice)