Nevitt v. United States Steel Corp.
18 F. Supp. 3d 1322
N.D. Ala.2014Background
- Nevitt suffered a January 2011 back injury at Cascades Sonoco; remained on restricted duty for ~five months and resigned under a workers’ compensation settlement.
- Nevitt applied for a Utility Technician position with U.S. Steel in August 2011; offer conditioned on passing a fitness-for-duty exam, including a medical history.
- A U.S. Steel medical review led to restrictions (20 lb lift, no repetitive back movements, 10‑minute breaks every two hours) based on two doctor notes.
- The job at issue requires lifting ≥50 pounds and cannot accommodate the 10‑minute breaks, leading U.S. Steel to withdraw the contingent offer.
- Nevitt alleges ADA discrimination (failure-to-hire) and a medical examination/inquiry violation; court denies summary judgment on the failure-to-hire claim but grants it on the medical-examination/inquiry claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nevitt was disabled under the ADA. | Nevitt was regarded/actually disabled by his back injury. | Disability status contested; transitory/minor impairment defenses apply. | Genuine disputes exist; not granted on disability issue. |
| Whether Nevitt was a qualified individual. | Nevitt could perform essential functions with/without accommodations. | Direct threat or unqualified status due to impairment. | Material fact questions remain; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether U.S. Steel violated the ADA medical examination and inquiry provisions. | Exam/records used improperly; not job-related or necessary. | Decision based on objective medical evidence; reasonable reliance. | Summary judgment for U.S. Steel granted on this count. |
| Whether the ‘transitory and minor’ defense bars a ‘regarded as’ claim when impairment is actual but perceived longer. | EEOC guidance requires consideration of perceived impairment duration. | Regarded-as defense should hinge on actual impairment duration. | Court rejects automatic bar; ultimately, unresolved factual questions preclude summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment shifting burden; movant must show absence of a genuine issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute requires trial if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant)
- Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2002) (non-movant must present competent evidence to support disputed facts)
- Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cnty., 495 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir.2007) (credibility and weighing evidence are jury functions)
- Lowe v. Alabama Power Co., 244 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.2001) (reasonableness of medical judgment; recency and best available evidence)