Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc., 908 F.3d 428

Background

Nunies was a delivery driver whose job required lifting ~50 lbs; he sought a transfer to a part‑time warehouse position in mid‑June 2013.
Nunies says the transfer was approved June 14; he informed supervisors of shoulder pain on June 17.
On June 19 HIE rescinded the transfer, told Nunies to resign, and listed the separation as a resignation; HIE advertised the same part‑time position days later.
Nunies sought medical care June 20 and later was diagnosed (MRI) with supraspinatus tendinitis/partial tear; lifting restrictions persisted into 2014.
Nunies sued under the ADA and Hawaii law for disability discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment to HIE, finding Nunies neither regarded‑as disabled nor actually disabled.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and reversed on both regarded‑as and actual disability grounds, remanding for further proceedings; it affirmed only that state statute did not bar the ADA claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nunies was "regarded as" disabled under the ADAAA	Nunies: HIE terminated him because it knew of his shoulder injury; causation can be inferred from timing and HIE's misleading explanation	HIE: Nunies' report of "shoulder pain" was insufficient; any impairment was transitory/minor and employer lacked notice	Court: Reversed — under ADAAA a plaintiff need not show employer believed a major‑life activity was substantially limited; sufficient triable facts exist that HIE acted because of perceived impairment; employer bears burden to prove "transitory and minor" defense
Whether Nunies had an "actual" disability (substantially limits major life activity)	Nunies: Shoulder pain substantially limited lifting/working (stabbing pain when raising arm; 25 lb restriction)	HIE: Nunies continued working despite pain, so no substantial limitation	Court: Reversed — triable issues exist whether injury substantially limited lifting/working under the ADAAA and EEOC's broad construction
Whether Hawaii statutory remedies (HRS §§ 378‑32/378‑35) preclude Nunies' ADA claim	Nunies: Federal ADA claim is distinct; state exclusivity does not bar ADA relief	HIE: State exclusive remedy for work‑related injuries should bar claims	Court: Affirmed that state remedial scheme does not bar Nunies' ADA claim; district court correctly denied summary judgment on preclusion theory
Whether the district court properly resolved factual inferences on summary judgment	Nunies: Factual disputes (timing, communications, ad for position) require jury resolution	HIE: Evidence supported a non‑discriminatory reason; summary judgment appropriate	Court: Reversed as to discrimination issues — factual inferences (offer rescinded after notice of injury, advertisement for same job) create triable issues

Key Cases Cited

Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.) (pre‑ADAAA regarded‑as standard requiring subjective belief of substantial limitation)
Hutton v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 273 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2001) (employer bears burden of establishing "transitory and minor" exception)
Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) (causation inference from timing of adverse action)
Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (misleading employer reasons support inference of intentional discrimination)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct.) (plaintiff may show pretext via misleading employer explanations)
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct.) (Supreme Court interpretation of "disability" later superseded by ADAAA)
Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Sup. Ct.) (Supreme Court standard for "substantially limits" narrowed pre‑ADAAA)
Entm't Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1997) (requirement for specifically and distinctly raising an issue on appeal)
Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corp., 951 P.2d 507 (Haw. Ct. App.) (Hawaii case on workers' compensation remedy; discussed re: state exclusivity)