Robert Parker v. Crete Carrier Corporation
839 F.3d 717
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Crete Carrier required drivers with BMI ≥35 to undergo in-lab polysomnography (sleep study) to screen for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); drivers who refused were taken out of service.
- Parker, a Crete over-the-road driver, had a DOT physical showing BMI >35; Crete scheduled him for an in-lab sleep study in July 2013.
- Parker refused the sleep study after his personal PA-C wrote that it was not medically necessary; Crete suspended him and did not reinstate him.
- Parker sued under the ADA, alleging (1) unlawful required medical examination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) and (2) discrimination for being regarded as disabled (regarded-as claim).
- The district court admitted Crete’s sleep-apnea expert testimony, denied Parker’s Daubert and summary judgment motions, and granted summary judgment to Crete; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring an in-lab sleep study for drivers with BMI ≥35 violated ADA §12112(d)(4)(A) (medical exam must be job-related and consistent with business necessity) | Parker: Crete should have considered his individual characteristics before mandating the exam; inclusion in the BMI-based class was unreasonable. | Crete: OSA impairs driving; BMI correlates with OSA; in-lab sleep study is the gold standard and necessary to diagnose OSA; class-based screening is permissible if reasonably defined. | Court: Requirement was job-related and consistent with business necessity; defining class by BMI ≥35 was reasonable; summary judgment for Crete. |
| Whether Crete’s definition of the screened class (BMI ≥35) was reasonable | Parker: His lack of workplace sleep issues, current DOT certification, safety awards, and physician note showed he should not be included. | Crete: Those factors do not negate the BMI correlation with OSA or the reasonableness of the class definition. | Court: Those individual factors did not undermine Crete’s reasonable basis; class definition stands. |
| Whether Parker’s suspension for refusing the study was regarded-as discrimination under the ADA | Parker: Crete regarded him as having OSA and took adverse action. | Crete: Suspension was for lawful refusal to submit to a job-related medical exam. | Court: Even assuming prima facie elements, Crete articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (refusal); Parker failed to show pretext. |
| Admissibility of Crete’s expert (Daubert challenge) | Parker: Expert lacked sufficient data regarding Parker; methodology unreliable without an individual sleep study. | Crete: Expert’s qualifications and methodology met Rule 702; general scientific literature and clinical expertise supported opinions. | Court: No abuse of discretion in admitting the expert; the expert’s views were sufficiently reliable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- Russell v. Whirlpool Corp., 702 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for admitting expert testimony)
- Kuhn v. Wyeth, Inc., 686 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2012) (court should not choose between competing reliable scientific theories)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516 (8th Cir. 2007) (business necessity standard for medical exams under ADA)
- Conroy v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (employers may require class-based medical exams if reasonably defined)
- Norman v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 606 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2010) (regarded-as discrimination prima facie framework)
- Kratzer v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 398 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2005) (burden-shifting for ADA discrimination claims)