Ryan v. Capital Contractors, Inc., 26 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 385

Ryan worked for Capital Contractors in 1973-1999, 2000-2003, and 2005-2008; terminated December 1, 2008.
Neuropsychological testing showed IQ 56 and speech impediment; he did not disclose disability to management.
Co-workers and management recognized some cognitive limitations but did not prevent job performance.
An on-site altercation with supervisor Collins led to Ryan's termination; Collins received lesser discipline.
Capital Contractors asserted Ryan violated a no-fighting policy; Collins’ discipline varied due to role and conduct.
Court reviews summary judgment de novo, assuming prima facie case for ADA, then evaluates pretext and hostile environment arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Ryan’s termination pretext for ADA discrimination?	Ryan	Capital Contractors	No substantial pretext shown; termination justified by fighting policy.
Did Collins’s conduct create a hostile work environment under the ADA?	Ryan	Capital Contractors	No hostile environment; conduct not severe or pervasive and not tied to disability.
Were Ryan and Collins similarly situated for pretext analysis?	Ryan	Collins differed in position and conduct	Not sufficiently similar; different roles and levels of aggression preclude pretext finding.

Ward v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prods. Co., 111 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 1997) (firing for fighting upheld; different conduct justified disparate discipline)
Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. Co., Inc., 181 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 1999) (hostile environment requires unwelcome conduct, signaled by plaintiff's behavior)
Lynn v. Deaconess Med. Ctr.-W. Campus, 160 F.3d 484 (8th Cir. 1998) (similarly situated standard for pretext)
Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2006) (policy violation as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
Kozisek v. County of Seward, 539 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2008) (establishing prima facie case under ADA and burden shifting)