906 F.3d 728
8th Cir.2018Background
- Faulkner, a 56‑year‑old Correctional Officer II (COII) with Douglas County Dept. of Corrections (DCDC), sustained shoulder and back injuries during inmate altercations in 2012 and underwent surgeries and prolonged medical treatment.
- Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) imposed lifting and overhead restrictions and limits on pushing/pulling; she received light duty through May–July 2013 but exhausted the CBA’s 180‑day light‑duty limit.
- DCDC notified Faulkner her FCE restrictions precluded performing the essential functions of a COII and requested she propose accommodations; she requested reassignment to lobby/central control or DMV and later had additional cervical surgery.
- DCDC terminated Faulkner on January 31, 2014, because she could not perform COII duties with or without reasonable accommodation, had exhausted CBA light‑duty limits, and no DMV position was available.
- Faulkner sued alleging sex, age, disability (failure‑to‑accommodate and discrimination), and retaliation under federal and Nebraska law; the district court granted summary judgment for DCDC and Faulkner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination (McDonnell Douglas prima facie) | Faulkner identified seven male comparators treated better | DCDC: most comparators were not similarly situated or had no restrictions; one was treated the same | No prima facie case; summary judgment for DCDC |
| Failure to accommodate / ADA interactive process | DCDC could have reassigned Faulkner permanently to lobby, night shift, DMV, or continued indefinite light duty | DCDC: essential COII functions (restrain inmates, use force) remain required in those posts; CBA limits light‑duty duration; no reasonable accommodation existed | Faulkner was not a qualified individual because she could not perform essential functions with any reasonable accommodation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Disability discrimination (ADA/State law) | Her disability prevented termination; DCDC failed to accommodate | DCDC: termination due to inability to perform essential duties and exhaustion of contractual light duty; no reasonable accommodation available | Dismissed—no liability where employee could not be reasonably accommodated |
| Age discrimination (ADEA) | Faulkner claimed younger, similarly situated employees were treated better | DCDC: no similarly situated substantially younger comparator existed | No prima facie ADEA case; summary judgment for DCDC |
Key Cases Cited
- Crozier v. Wint, 736 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc., 641 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination claims)
- Bennett v. Nucor Corp., 656 F.3d 802 (8th Cir.) (need for similarly situated comparators to infer disparate treatment)
- Norman v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 606 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.) (ADA prima facie elements for qualification and accommodation)
- Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 62 F.3d 1108 (8th Cir.) (essence of job functions judged by actual workplace functioning, not only job description)
- Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir.) (employer not required to eliminate or reallocate essential job functions)
- Faidley v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 889 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. en banc) (employee must show reasonable accommodation was available absent employer bad faith)
- Dropinski v. Douglas Cty., 298 F.3d 704 (8th Cir.) (interactive‑process discussion is superfluous when employee cannot perform essential duties)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (established burden‑shifting framework for discriminatory discharge claims)