Fischer v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs, No. 14-2245 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseFischer worked for Minneapolis Public Schools as a Janitor Engineer, 2008-2010, and performed satisfactorily. After being laid off for fiscal reasons, he was told that he was eligible for reinstatement, conditioned on his possession of a boilers license and his completion of a strength test created by Cost Reduction Technology that measured the “maximum force-producing capability of muscles.” Fisher did not pass the test. Fischer alleged that District employees told him that he was not reinstated because of his back, that he was “incapable of pulling, carrying, pushing, or lifting a heavy load,” and that his employment would “create[] a substantial risk of injury in the work place.” The District denied his request for a retest. Fischer sued, claiming violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act by refusing to reinstate him. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the district. The District’s belief that Fischer was capable of performing the physical labor of a medium strength worker is not equivalent to a belief that Fischer suffered a physical impairment such as a physiological disorder, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or disease as defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(1).
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The evidence failed to raise a material fact as to whether defendant regarded plaintiff as having a physical or mental impairment and defendant's statements that plaintiff lacked the strength to perform portions of the job did not lead to a reasonable inference that defendant regarded him as having a physical impairment or being physically disabled; absent some showing of discriminatory intent, which is lacking here, defendant may establish different strength requirements for its jobs; plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
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.