Yinger v. Postal Presort, Inc.
693 F. App'x 768
10th Cir.2017Background
- David Yinger worked for Postal Presort, Inc. (PPI); he has a serious heart condition requiring a pacemaker and underwent a pocket-battery replacement that became infected.
- OSHA inspected PPI after PPI’s owner, Pulliam, believed Yinger had reported asbestos concerns; Pulliam circulated memos disparaging the (unnamed) reporter and saying maintenance work (part of Yinger’s duties) would be outsourced.
- PPI granted Yinger 12 weeks of FMLA leave; Yinger told HR on March 11 his doctor expected he would need an extra week (to April 23). PPI managers told HR to remain silent and later decided to treat him as no longer employed.
- On April 23, after his doctor released him to work, Yinger was told he would not return and was not given a written termination. Pulliam instructed HR not to put anything in writing.
- Yinger sued for (1) failure to accommodate under the ADA (seeking an extra week of leave) and (2) retaliatory discharge under Kansas law based on PPI’s belief he reported OSHA. The district court granted summary judgment to PPI; the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yinger had a disability under the ADA | Yinger’s heart condition (and infection/side effects) substantially limited major life activities | PPI argued Yinger performed job without restrictions and thus had no ADA disability | Court: A reasonable jury could find an actual disability; mitigation (pacemaker) and temporary infection cannot be ignored post-2008 ADA amendments |
| Whether Yinger requested a reasonable accommodation | Yinger orally told HR he expected to need one extra week of leave on March 11 | PPI contends no formal extension request or documentation; says Yinger failed to pursue discussions | Court: March 11 notice to HR sufficed to trigger accommodation obligations and an interactive process |
| Whether PPI engaged in the required interactive process / whether PPI effectively granted the extension | Yinger says PPI failed to engage or communicate and did not confirm an extension | PPI claims it granted the extension (or had no position to hold) and that Yinger failed to return after FMLA | Court: Fact issues exist — evidence shows PPI delayed, instructed HR to be silent, and gave inconsistent testimony about granting leave; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Yinger established causal connection for retaliatory discharge under Kansas law | Yinger contends PPI believed he reported OSHA, engaged in retaliatory conduct after inspection (memos, cold treatment), and termination was culmination | PPI cites nine-month gap and economic/overstaffing reasons for termination | Court: A jury could find a pattern of retaliation starting after OSHA memos and culminating at termination; temporal gap not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Williams v. FedEx Corp. Servs., 849 F.3d 889 (10th Cir. 2017) (elements of ADA prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (interactive-process obligations; failure-to-accommodate as discrimination)
- C.R. Eng., Inc. v. EEOC, 644 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2011) (notice requirement for accommodation requests)
- Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 2004) (employer’s failure to participate in interactive process supports ADA claim)
- Reinhardt v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 595 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2010) (adverse acts that harm reputation can constitute actionable retaliation)
- JetAway Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 754 F.3d 824 (10th Cir. 2014) (standards for sealing appellate records)