This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendant, sustained a shoulder injury while working as a dump truck driver and warehouseman. After surgery, he returned to work with lifting restrictions. He later applied for two positions with the Defendant but was not hired. The Plaintiff alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law, claiming his shoulder impairment constituted a "disability" and that he was discriminated against due to this condition (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, April 18, 2001: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims of retaliation and discrimination under the ADA and state law.
- Court of Appeals, First Appeal: The summary judgment on the retaliation claim was affirmed, but the summary judgment on the ADA discrimination claim was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings (paras 6-7).
- District Court, Post-Remand: A stipulated order vacated the summary judgment on the ADA claim but did not address the state law claim. The Defendant filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, which was granted, dismissing the complaint with prejudice (paras 7-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that his shoulder impairment substantially limited his ability to perform manual tasks, a major life activity under the ADA. He also claimed the Defendant perceived him as disabled and discriminated against him by not hiring him for the positions he applied for (paras 3, 5, 18).
- Defendant: Contended that the Plaintiff did not meet the ADA's definition of "disability" as his impairment did not substantially limit major life activities. The Defendant also argued there was no evidence it perceived the Plaintiff as disabled (paras 8, 18-19).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff's shoulder impairment constituted a "disability" under the ADA.
- Whether the Defendant perceived the Plaintiff as having a "disability" under the ADA.
- Whether the Plaintiff abandoned his state law discrimination claim.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiff's ADA discrimination claim (para 22).
- The Court concluded that the Plaintiff had abandoned his state law discrimination claim (para 21).
Reasons
Per Michael Vigil J. (Pickard and Castillo JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of "disability" under the ADA. While the Plaintiff's shoulder impairment was undisputed, he did not provide sufficient evidence that it substantially limited his ability to perform tasks central to daily life, as required by the ADA and clarified in Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams (paras 13-17). The Plaintiff's affidavit contained only conclusory statements without factual support, which was insufficient to overcome summary judgment (para 17).
The Court also rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant perceived him as disabled. The Plaintiff failed to show that the Defendant believed his impairment substantially limited a major life activity (para 19).
Regarding the state law claim, the Court found that the Plaintiff had abandoned it. The stipulated order on remand did not address the state claim, and the Plaintiff did not raise it in response to the Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment (para 21).