Otto v. City of Victoria , No. 11-2753 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff was terminated from his employment with the City of Victoria, Minnesota. Plaintiff bought an action against his former employer, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Eighth District affirmed, holding (1) summary judgment on Plaintiff's ADA claim was proper; (2) Plaintiff's termination did not violate the ADEA, as Plaintiff was not qualified for the position because of his disability; and (3) Plaintiff was not deprived of property without due process of law by being discharged without a formal hearing.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff failed to show that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his position, without or without accommodation, and the district court did not err in granting the employer summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA claim; plaintiff's ADEA claim failed as he could not perform the duties of the position in question; plaintiff was an at-will employee and the City's termination of his employment did not deprive him of a property interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.