569 F. App'x 622
10th Cir.2014Background
- Scavetta sued Dillon Companies (King Soopers) under the ADA for disability and retaliation after being fired in 2009 for refusing immunizations due to RA.
- Plaintiff sought an exemption from administering vaccines; exemption denied; district court instructed the jury on disability and major life activities.
- Parties disputed the scope of major life activities, especially whether the operation of major bodily functions (immune/musculoskeletal) could be included.
- The district court gave a narrowed instruction focusing on manual tasks, walking, standing, and working, excluding major bodily functions.
- Plaintiff argued RA’s inherent effects on immune/musculoskeletal functions warranted inclusion of major bodily functions; defendant argued no specific evidence of substantial limitation.
- The panel affirmed the district court’s instruction and held there was no per se disability requiring a broader instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial instruction should include major bodily functions | Scavetta: RA’s effects on immune/musculoskeletal functions require inclusion | King Soopers: no specific evidence RA substantially limits immune/musculoskeletal functions | No; instruction proper without major bodily functions |
| Whether evidence supported a substantial limitation to RA affecting major life activities | RA inherently affects immune/musculoskeletal systems | No specific evidence of substantial limitation | Evidence did not show RA substantially limited major bodily functions; jury instruction focusing on physical activities appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lederman v. Frontier Fire Prot., Inc., 685 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for jury instructions; de novo legal objections)
- Pratt v. Petelin, 733 F.3d 1006 (10th Cir. 2013) (disability proof requires evidence, not mere labeling of impairment)
- Berry v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 490 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007) (ADA disability requires impairment, major life activity, and substantial limitation)
- Sanchez v. Vilsack, 695 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2012) (no per se disability; individualized assessment required)
- Carter v. Pathfinder Energy Servs., Inc., 662 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2011) (whether impairment substantially limits a major life activity is typically a factual question)
- Dilley v. SuperValu, Inc., 296 F.3d 958 (10th Cir. 2002) (instruction should focus jury on evidence of impairment’s limitation)