Faidley v. United Parcel Service, No. 16-1073 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff was injured as a delivery driver for UPS and UPS failed to offer him another full time position that he was able to perform, plaintiff filed suit for disability discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to UPS. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff was not qualified to perform the essential job functions for the delivery driver position; however, the district court erred by determining as a matter of law that defendant was unable to perform the essential job functions of the feeder driver position; there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on his claim that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position; plaintiff presented evidence that UPS expected that feeder driver positions would become open in the near future; and thus defendant provided sufficient evidence to support his 2012 disability discrimination claim. In regard to the 2013 discrimination claim, plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence that he was qualified to perform the essential job functions of any available job; plaintiff failed to show that UPS failed to make a good faith effort to help him in seeking an accommodation; and thus summary judgment for UPS was appropriate as to this claim. Finally, the court concluded that defendant waived his 2013 accommodation claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Kelly, Circuit Judge, and Montgomery, District Judge] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court correctly determined that plaintiff was not qualified to perform the essential job functions of a delivery driver; however, the court erred by determining as a matter of law that plaintiff was unable to perform the essential duties of a feeder driver position as there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on plaintiff's claim that he was qualified; it was sufficient for plaintiff to present evidence that the position would be open in the near future to establish that a position was available; defendant's decision to reject plaintiff's bids for full time work was sufficient to show plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; with respect to plaintiff's claim for a later incident of alleged discrimination, he failed to show he was qualified to perform the essential duties of any available job; the record further showed that defendant made a good faith effort to assist plaintiff in seeking an accommodation, and defendant was entitled to summary judgment with respect to this second claim. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Montgomery, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 11, 2018.
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.