Leland Melvin Otto v. City of Victoria
685 F.3d 755
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Otto worked in the City of Victoria, Minnesota, Department of Public Works as a Public Works Worker II from 1985 to 2009 with heavy lifting duties.
- He sustained back injuries in 1990 and 2006 and returned to work after each injury.
- In 2007 he developed numbness; after surgery his physician diagnosed total disability for an indeterminate period.
- In December 2008 a physician cleared four hours of sedentary work; Otto could not return due to lack of suitable City positions and his work restrictions were deemed permanent.
- The City terminated Otto in February 2009 (age 59) after a personnel committee and City Council decision, allegedly replacing him with younger workers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA: whether Otto was qualified for the job with/without accommodation | Otto argues some accommodations could enable him to perform duties | City contends the disability permanently restricts work and accommodations are unreasonable | Summary judgment for City; Otto not qualified; accommodations not required |
| ADEA: whether termination was age-based discrimination | Ott o points to younger replacements as evidence of discrimination | No inference of age discrimination; Otto not qualified due to disability | No ADEA liability; cannot prevail because Otto was not qualified |
| Due process: whether discharge without a hearing violated due process | Otto had a property interest in continued employment and thus a right to a hearing | Otto was an at-will employee with no protected property interest | No due process violation; dismissal did not implicate a protected property interest |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1999) (adopted McDonnell Douglas framework in the Eighth Circuit)
- U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (Supreme Court 1983) (ultimate question of discrimination after full development of record)
- Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2008) (direct-ultimate discrimination analysis in summary judgment context)
- Alexander v. Northland Inn, 321 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2003) (ADA: physician's restrictions may foreclose job functions)
- Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1999) (ADA accommodations not required to create new positions or reallocate essential functions)
- Carraher v. Target Corp., 503 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2007) (reasonableness of accommodations and inference issues)
- Anderson v. Durham D&M, L.L.C., 606 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2010) (qualification for the job as a prerequisite to ADEA claims)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (Supreme Court 1985) (due process rights for property interests in public employment)
- Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (Supreme Court 1976) (at-will employment and absence of property interest in continued employment)