Tony Gunter v. Bemis Co.,Inc.
906 F.3d 484
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Tony Gunter, a longtime press assistant at Bemis, injured his right shoulder at work in Jan. 2013, had surgery, and thereafter worked under physician-imposed restrictions (e.g., no overhead use of right arm; limits on lifting/reaching).
- Bemis obtained a functional capacity evaluation showing Gunter could perform only light work; Bemis nonetheless let him continue with temporary restrictions while waiting for physician review.
- In June 2014 Dr. Garside approved Gunter to return with specific restrictions (no overhead with right arm; lifting limits), and Bemis placed him on paid leave in July and terminated him in November 2014, believing it could not accommodate the restrictions.
- Gunter sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A jury found Bemis liable for firing Gunter because of his disability, failing to accommodate, and failing to engage in the interactive process; it awarded back pay, compensatory damages, and front pay.
- The district court reduced the award to exclude lost-insurance-benefit damages; the parties cross-appealed. The Sixth Circuit affirms in part, reverses in part, vacates the front-pay award, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gunter was a "qualified individual" able to perform essential functions of press assistant | Gunter argued he could perform essential duties with restrictions using available aids and coworker assistance | Bemis argued medical restrictions and job description showed he could not meet essential functions (lifting/reaching) | Jury could reasonably find Gunter qualified; court denies JMOL for Bemis and leaves issue to jury findings |
| Whether Gunter failed to mitigate damages (affecting back pay and front pay) | Gunter argued he used reasonable diligence given limited education/reading ability and sought available jobs | Bemis argued Gunter did not diligently seek substantially similar positions after discharge | Court held Gunter proved mitigation with reasonable certainty; Bemis failed to show availability of similar positions or lack of diligence |
| Whether district court erred by instructing jury to award front pay instead of reinstatement | Gunter argued reinstatement was possible and preferred remedy; front pay should not be the only option | Bemis argued reinstatement unsafe/impracticable and had not offered to reinstate before verdict | Court held reinstatement is the presumptive remedy; district court erred in removing reinstatement option; vacated front-pay award and remanded to determine front pay only for period until plant closure and to consider proper remedy given plant closure |
| Cross-appeal: whether district court erred reducing damages for lost insurance benefits; jurisdiction of cross-appeal | Gunter argued he incurred higher replacement-insurance costs and thus should recover lost-benefit value | Bemis argued Gunter offered no proof of actual expenses and district court properly excluded speculative benefit value | Court held district court correctly reduced award; plaintiff failed to prove actual expenses with reasonable certainty |
Key Cases Cited
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (job description evidence is probative of essential functions but not dispositive)
- Hoskins v. Oakland Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 227 F.3d 719 (6th Cir. 2000) (employer need not shift essential job functions to others as accommodation)
- Suggs v. ServiceMaster Educ. Food Mgmt., 72 F.3d 1228 (6th Cir. 1996) (reinstatement and front pay are alternative remedies; reinstatement preferred)
- Roush v. KFC Nat’l Mgmt. Co., 10 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 1993) (reinstatement favored; hostility evidence can affect remedy)
- Arban v. West Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (district court’s front-pay determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843 (2001) (front pay may be awarded for period until employer changes made it impossible to reinstate)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (distinguishing jurisdictional deadlines from claim-processing rules)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (statutory clarity required to treat procedural rule as jurisdictional)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Rasimas v. Mich. Dep’t of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1983) (employer must show availability of similar jobs and plaintiff’s lack of diligence to rebut mitigation)
- Hance v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 571 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2009) (lost-benefits awards must be based on actual replacement expenses, not mere value of lost benefits)
- Blackwell v. Sun Elec. Corp., 696 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1983) (discussion of lost benefits not dispositive on proof standard)
- Pittington v. Great Smoky Mountain Lumberjack Feud, LLC, 880 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff bears burden to prove damages with reasonable certainty)