Faidley v. United Parcel Service, No. 16-1073 (8th Cir. 2018)Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion in Faidley v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 853 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 2017).
The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for UPS in an action alleging that UPS violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) when it placed him on medical leave from his long time position as a package car driver and then failed to reasonably accommodate his physical disability. The court held that UPS did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or ICRA by refusing plaintiff's request for an eight-hour work day because that accommodation would have made him unqualified to perform the essential job functions of a package car driver. The court also held that no reasonable jury could find that UPS's decision to instead pursue reassignment to full-time jobs which plaintiff had suggested, and for which he was immediately qualified, was disability discrimination; UPS did not violate the ADA when it refused to accommodate an expert's restrictions of working certain hours per day; and a reasonable jury could not find that UPS acted in bad faith.
Court Description: Loken, for the Court En Banc] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court did not err in finding that the ability to work overtime was an essential function of plaintiff's UPS package car driver job, and UPS did not violate the ADA or the Iowa Civil Rights Act by refusing plaintiff's request for an eight-hour day because that accommodation would have made him unqualified to perform the essential job functions of a package car driver; plaintiff was not qualified for the reassignment position of a feeder driver position because he could not meet the essential job function of working 9.5 hours per day under his work restrictions, and UPS was not obligated under the ADA to offer a position for which plaintiff was not qualified; on this record, plaintiff's doctor's facially unambiguous restriction letter established that plaintiff was not qualified to be reassigned as a feeder driver; the panel's determination that UPS did not violate the ADA when it refused to accommodate plaintiff's temporary restriction to working four hours a day for five weeks at a combined loader-preloader position after his doctor eliminated his permanent 8-hour per day restriction is affirmed, as UPS was not obligated to reallocate the essential functions of the combined positions and plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the job given his lifting restrictions; UPS participated in the interactive process prescribed in the ADA Procedural Compliance Manual, and no reasonable jury could find that UPS acted in bad faith. Judge Murphy, with Chief Judge Smith and Judge Kelly join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 4, 2017.