Summary
The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part summary judgment in an employment discrimination case involving FMLA, ADA/ADAAA, and ADEA claims. The court held that the district court erred by failing to apply the ADAAA's broader definition of disability when it dismissed claims based on a temporary elbow injury, because temporary impairments can qualify as disabilities under the actual disability and record-of prongs. The court affirmed summary judgment on age discrimination and FMLA retaliation claims, and upheld a jury verdict finding FMLA interference but not willful, with evidence supporting that the employer would have terminated the employee regardless. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the ADAAA disability discrimination and retaliation claims based on the elbow injury.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in permitting Torgeson to argue a reduction in force at trial.
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing ADEA and KADEA age discrimination claims.
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing ADAAA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims.
- Whether the jury's finding that Torgeson's FMLA interference was not willful was against the weight of the evidence.
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing the FMLA retaliation claim.
Holdings
- The issue is waived because Skerce failed to adequately brief it, as he did not comply with Tenth Circuit Rule 28.1(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6).
- The district court properly granted summary judgment because Skerce failed to present evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently, and therefore failed to show pretext.
- The district court committed legal error by failing to consider the claim under the ADAAA and by determining the injury could not qualify as a disability because it was temporary.
- No reversible error because Skerce concedes Torgeson provided light duty, which was a reasonable accommodation.
- The district court erred in not considering this claim with respect to the elbow injury; we reverse and remand for the district court to consider it in the first instance.
- The jury's finding is supported by substantial evidence; Torgeson's conduct could be viewed as mere negligence or unreasonable determination, not reckless disregard.
- The district court properly granted summary judgment because Skerce did not engage in protected activity under the FMLA.
Key quotations
“Our review is limited to determining whether the record—viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party—contains substantial evidence to support the jury’s decision. Substantial evidence is something less than the weight of the evidence, and is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if different conclusions also might be supported by the evidence. Thus, we may reverse a jury’s verdict only if the evidence points but one way and is not susceptible to any reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.” (at 4)
“The six-month 'transitory' part of the 'transitory and minor' exception to 'regarded as' coverage ... does not apply to the definition of 'disability' under ... the 'actual disability' prong ... or ... the 'record of' prong ... Instead, the effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting within the meaning of this section.” (at 10)
“Willful conduct is generally understood to refer to conduct that is not merely negligent. Even if an employer acts unreasonably, but not recklessly, in determining its legal obligation ... its conduct is not willful.” (at 14)
Factual background
Skerce worked as an electrician for Torgeson. He injured his elbow at work in January 2015, was placed on light duty, and was terminated on April 23, 2015, shortly after being cleared to return to full duty. Torgeson did not notify Skerce of FMLA eligibility. Skerce also had diabetes and other health conditions. Torgeson claimed the termination was due to a reduction in force.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment on most claims, two claims proceeded to trial, and after a jury verdict for Torgeson, the court entered judgment in favor of Torgeson. Skerce appealed.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision, specifically to analyze the ADAAA disability and retaliation claims based on the elbow injury under the appropriate legal standards.