Case Information
Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, LOKEN, Circuit Judge, and MAGNUSON, District Judge.
_____________
BOWMAN, Chief Judge.
Gavin Gutridge sued Midland Computer, Inc., doing business as Computerland of Nebraska, and its president, Wayne Clure (hereinafter collectively referred to as *2 "Computerland"), for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (1994). Both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted Computerland's motion, denied Gutridge's mоtion, and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Gutridge appeals, claiming that the District Court erred in finding that he was not disabled under the ADA.
I.
Computerland sells computers and related prоducts to businesses and provides maintenance for those computer products almost exclusively at the customer's place of business, or on-site. Computerland hired Gutridge as a computer service technician in October 1990. Gutridge's duties included the installation, repair, and service of computer equipment sold to Computerland's customers. In performing these duties, Gutridge was required to lift computer equipment both at the store and on-site, transport computer equipment between the customer site and Computerland's shop, and move on-site objects such as desks, shelves, and chairs.
In March 1993, Gutridge was lifting a computer monitor when his left wrist snappеd, causing pain and numbness in his wrist, hand, and fingers. Gutridge received medical treatment and was eventually diagnosed with carpel tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome in both his left and right wrists. Thereafter, through June 1995, Gutridge underwent five separate surgeries on his left and right wrists and elbows. After each surgery, Gutridge was placed by his doctors on various lifting restrictions and returnеd to work. During this time, Computerland assigned Gutridge to a temporary position requiring only light duty, in-shop services. On June 19, 1995, Gutridge's treating physician issued a written release to return to work with thе permanent restriction that he may lift forty-five pounds 5% of the work day, thirty-five *3 pounds 33% of the work day, twenty pounds 20% of the work day, and ten pounds consistently. A few days later, Comрuterland terminated Gutridge's employment. In its letter of termination to Gutridge, Computerland stated:
We have been informed that your rehabilitation program has ended and that the medical restrictions as identified by Dr. David Clough are now rated as permanent. That condition unfortunately prevents you from being able to fully accomplish the tasks necessary to perform your job functions.
J.A. at 24. Three and one-half weeks later, Gutridge was hired as a computer service technician by a company thаt repaired computers both in-shop and on-site.
II.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. See Wooten
v. Farmland Foods,
The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating "against a qualified individual with а disability because of the disability of such individual." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To establish a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show "that he has a disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); that he is qualified to perform the essential funсtions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and that he has suffered adverse employment action because of his disability." Benson v. Northwest Airlinеs, Inc., 62 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Wooten, 58 F.3d at 385). "Disability" is defined as "(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
Gutridge first claims that he is disabled under § 12102(2)(A) because his permanent lifting restriction, he argues, substantially limits one or more of his major life activities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations define "major life activities" as "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (1997). Gutridge argues that his carpel tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome, which resulted in him being placed on a permanеnt lifting restriction, substantially limits his major life activity of working. "Substantially limits" with respect to the major life activity of working means "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a clаss of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes." Id. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The regulations further state that "[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantiаl limitation." Id.
Gutridge has failed to present evidence that he is substantially limited in the
major life activity of working. See Robinson v. Neodata Servs. Inc.,
Gutridge also contends that his permanent lifting restriction substantially limits
his major life activity of lifting. The EEOC regulations include lifting as an example
of a major life activity. See 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(i). A permanent lifting
restriction of not more than 45 pounds, however, neither renders him "[u]nable to
perform" nor "[s]ignificantly restrict[s]" his activity of lifting. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1630.2(j)(1)(i), (ii). Further, we have held that, "[w]hile lifting is noted under the
*5
regulations as a major life activity, a general lifting restriction imposed by a physician,
without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA."
Snow v. Ridgeview Med. Ctr.,
Finally, Gutridge argues that he disabled under § 12102(2)(B) because "his five
separate surgeries, wraps, splints, medication, work restrictions, and inability to
perform simple manual tasks" created a record of impairment. Gutridge Br. at 14. For
support, Gutridge relies on School Board оf Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, 480 U.S.
273 (1987). In Arline, the Supreme Court held that a school teacher's hospitalization
for tuberculosis nearly twenty years prior to her termination established a record of
impairment, and that she was therefore handicapped under the Rehabilitation Act. See
Arline,
We conclude that Gutridge has failed to рresent a genuine issue of fact that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. In so doing, we necessarily reject Gutridge's argument that the District Court erred in dismissing his motion for summary judgment. We therеfore affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Computerland.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Notes
[1] The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
[2] The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
[3] Cases interpreting the definition of "handicap" under the Rehabilitation Act are
instructive for purposes of interpreting "disability" under the ADA. See Wooten v.
Farmland Foods,