Luke Yeager v. Kaiser Aluminum Washington
669 F. App'x 837
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Luke Yeager sued Kaiser Aluminum Washington, LLC claiming disability discrimination and failure to accommodate after termination.
- Yeager did not assert he was actually disabled at termination; he alleged he was "perceived" as disabled by a nurse care manager.
- Kaiser’s labor relations manager made the termination decision and, according to the record, had no knowledge of Yeager’s medical condition or treatment.
- Yeager argued the nurse care manager’s perception should be imputed to Kaiser (cat’s paw theory) and that the perceived disability motivated his firing.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Kaiser; Yeager appealed. The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yeager was within the protected class under Washington law as a "perceived" disabled person | Yeager: nurse care manager perceived him as substantially limited in work ability; that perception should count and may have motivated termination | Kaiser: decisionmaker lacked knowledge of any disability; no evidence decisionmaker perceived Yeager as disabled; any subordinate's belief wasn't shown to have motivated the termination | Affirmed: Yeager failed to establish he was perceived as disabled by the decisionmaker or that any perceived disability was a substantial motivating factor in the termination |
| Whether Kaiser’s stated reason for termination was pretext | Yeager: employer’s reason was pretextual for discrimination | Kaiser: proffered legitimate reasons for termination | Not reached substantively — court found no need to decide because Yeager failed prima facie showing |
| Failure to accommodate / failure to engage in interactive process | Yeager: entitled to accommodation because perceived disability required employer action | Kaiser: accommodation obligations attach only if employee actually has a substantially limiting impairment | Affirmed: accommodation claims fail because Yeager alleged only perceived disability, not actual disability |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motions to strike | Yeager: district court erred in denying his motions to strike (no developed argument on appeal) | Kaiser: district court acted within discretion | Affirmed: Yeager failed to brief or reason how the district court abused its discretion; waiver of argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 859 P.2d 26 (Wash. 1993) (prima facie elements for disability discrimination under Washington law)
- EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 306 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002) (definition of "perceived" disability under ADA jurisprudence)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (framework for perceived/disability analysis)
- Hines v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 112 P.3d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (motivating-factor standard for perceived-disability causation)
- Kaplan v. City of N. Las Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2003) (accommodation obligations require actual substantial limitation)