Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_04-cv-00066/USCOURTS-alnd-2_04-cv-00066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party demonstrates

that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), F.R.Civ.P.; see Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In assessing whether the movant has met

its burden, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Hairston v.

Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993). In accordance

with this standard, the following statement of facts includes both undisputed

facts and the facts according to the plaintiff’s evidence, where there is a

dispute.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES IRVIN LITTLETON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

04-AR-0066-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court is the motion for summary judgment of

defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”). Plaintiff, Charles

Littleton (“Littleton”), is suing Wal-Mart for violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,

alleging that Wal-Mart refused to hire him on account of his

disability. For the reasons that follow, Wal-Mart’s motion is due

to be granted. 

Summary Judgment Facts1

Littleton suffers from mental retardation and high blood

pressure. He is certified by the State of Alabama to receive

services through the Department of Rehabilitation Services. A

FILED

 2005 Apr-12 PM 04:04

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:04-cv-00066-WMA Document 29 Filed 04/12/05 Page 1 of 8
2

Agee maintains that she did not go into detail with any Wal-Mart

personnel about the specifics of Littleton’s disability, because to do so

would have violated Littleton’s confidence.

2

vocational counselor named Carolyn Agee (“Agee”) assisted Littleton

in his efforts to obtain employment during the time period relevant

to this lawsuit. Agee worked for a grant-based organization called

Birmingham Independent Living Center (the “Center”), where her job

was to find employment for individuals with disabilities. 

Agee accompanied Littleton to the Wal-Mart store in Leeds,

Alabama, in March 2003. At that time, Littleton completed an

application for employment. Agee spoke with Marlene Barcanic

(“Barcanic”), the store’s personnel manager, about the prospect of

employing Littleton as a cart pusher, and even discussed

Littleton’s disability with her in very general terms.2 Agee

indicated in her deposition that she introduced herself as a

vocational specialist with the Center and that Barcanic knew

Littleton had a disability. 

Agee expressed to Barcanic that Littleton might need an

accommodation during his interview, namely, having Agee present in

order to make sure that Littleton understood all the questions

asked. Barcanic agreed to this request. In her deposition, Agee

also opined that Littleton might need “a little more coaching” than

an average individual in any particular job due to his disability,

particularly during the first few days of a new job.

On March 7, 2003, Littleton was interviewed at the Leeds

Case 2:04-cv-00066-WMA Document 29 Filed 04/12/05 Page 2 of 8
3

store. Agee accompanied Littleton that day, but she was not given

the opportunity to sit in on Littleton’s interviews. Littleton

first interviewed with the store customer service manager, Sandra

Johnson (“Johnson”). She noted on her comment sheet that, in

response to a question about the type of people he enjoyed working

with, Littleton responded that he did not like being around people.

In his deposition, Littleton denied making such a statement. After

completing her interview, Johnson showed her comments to assistant

manager, Paige Harkey (“Harkey”), who was to interview Littleton

next. Johnson voiced concerns to Harkey about Littleton as a

prospective employee. Harkey reviewed Johnson’s notes and

proceeded to interview Littleton. Both Johnson and Harkey testify

that, based on the interviews, they believed Littleton had poor

interpersonal skills. They did not indicate any judgment based on

a perceived “disability,” unless poor interpersonal skills

constitutes a disability. After her interview, Harkey told

Littleton that she would speak with her co-manager and that he

would receive a phone call if another interview was needed.

Littleton was never contacted or offered a position. 

Littleton testified in his deposition that his only disability

is high blood pressure. His mother attempted to explain this

apparent discrepancy between Littleton’s testimony and his

allegations by saying that her son is uncomfortable acknowledging

his mental retardation. Littleton, to the contrary, testified that

Case 2:04-cv-00066-WMA Document 29 Filed 04/12/05 Page 3 of 8
4

he is not limited whatsoever in terms of what he can do. Def. Exh.

A, Littleton Depo. pp. 19-22. Both his mother and Agee testified

that he can communicate effectively with others and that there is

no entry level job he cannot do because of his disability. Def.

Exh. C., D. Littleton Depo. pp. 31-34; Def. Exh. D., Agee Depo. pp.

34-35, 42. 

Analysis

Wal-Mart’s motion is due to be granted because Littleton’s

evidence fails to establish that he is “disabled” within the

meaning of that term as used in the ADA. To establish a prima

facie case, Littleton must demonstrate that he is (1) disabled,

(2) a qualified individual, and (3) that he was subjected to

unlawful discrimination because of his disability. 42 U.S.C. §

12112(a); Rossbach v. City of Miami, 371 F.3d 1354, 1356-57 (11th

Cir. 2004). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to

Littleton, there is simply no substantial evidence to support the

critical element of his claim that he be “disabled.” This is not

to discount the evidence that Littleton suffers from some degree

of mental retardation. Having what is considered a disability in

the abstract, however, does not establish that an individual is

“disabled” as that term is used in the ADA. Wal-Mart is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law here because there is no evidence

to support Littleton’s necessary contention that his retardation

substantially limits him in one or more major life activities. 

Case 2:04-cv-00066-WMA Document 29 Filed 04/12/05 Page 4 of 8
5

See Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 195

(2002)(“[m]erely having an impairment does not make one disabled

for purposes of the ADA. Claimants also need to demonstrate that

the impairment limits a major life activity”).

When the ADA makes it unlawful to discriminate against a

prospective employee because he is disabled, it defines

“disability” as:

 (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially 

 limits one or more of the major life activities of 

 such individual;

 (B) a record of such an impairment; or

 (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).

Although Littleton is mentally impaired and there is evidence

that Wal-Mart, through Barcanic’s involvement, recognized

Littleton’s limitations, these observations do not make

Littleton’s impairment into an ADA disability. To establish an

ADA case, Littleton must show that his impairment “severely

restricts [him] from doing activities that are of central

importance to most people’s daily lives.” Williams at 196-97. 

As the Supreme Court pointed out in Williams:

The impairment’s impact must also be permanent or long

term. It is insufficient for individuals attempting to

prove disability status...to merely submit evidence of

a medical diagnosis of an impairment. Instead, the ADA

requires...‘evidence that the extent of the

limitation...in terms of [the plaintiff’s] own

experience...is substantial.’ (internal citation

omitted). That the Act defines ‘disability’‘with

respect to an individual’...makes clear that Congress

intended the existence of a disability to be determined

Case 2:04-cv-00066-WMA Document 29 Filed 04/12/05 Page 5 of 8
6

in such a case-by-case manner.

******

An individualized assessment of the effect of an

impairment is particularly necessary when the

impairment is one whose symptoms vary widely from

person to person.

Id. at 198-99.

The Supreme Court’s discussion in Williams illuminates the

reason Littleton’s claim fails: he presents no evidence that his

retardation substantially limits one or more of his major life

activities. Littleton, Agee, and Littleton’s mother all swear

that he is able to perform all types of jobs. He is able to

read, to comprehend, and to communicate. The overwhelming

evidence is that he is not limited in any major life activity. 

In fact, Littleton does not even identify any major life activity

that he claims he is substantially limited in performing. In

other words, the first element for framing the debate –

identification of the substantially limited major life activity –

is here lacking. Without even referring to the test set forth by

the Supreme Court, Littleton’s brief simply argues by way of

legal conclusion that “Littleton is [d]isabled,” apparently based

mainly on the fact that he “is certified by the State to receive

services from the Alabama Department of Rehabilitation Services.” 

A state agency cannot certify that an individual is “disabled”

under the ADA, especially when that individual denies that he has

any mental shortcoming that would substantially limit him or

Case 2:04-cv-00066-WMA Document 29 Filed 04/12/05 Page 6 of 8
3

Littleton, like the plaintiff in Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301, 1305

(11th Cir. 2000), “did not clearly articulate which of the three statutory

definitions of disability [he] was proceeding under.” Even assuming, however,

that Littleton contends he is disabled under all three definitional prongs,

the requirement that the disability – whether actual, record, or perceived –

substantially limit a major life activity applies with full force under each

prong. See id. at 1306 (framing the issue as “whether [plaintiff] presented

evidence that [defendant] ‘regarded’ her as having an impairment that

substantially limited a major life activity under § 12102(2)(C)”). The court

does not adopt Wal-Mart’s contention that Littleton can only proceed upon

showing that he actually has a substantially limiting impairment, but it does

not have to in order to conclude that his ADA claim fails. 

7

require accommodation by an employer. 

The language of the ADA is to be “interpreted strictly to

create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.” 

Williams, 534 U.S. at 197. Even drawing all reasonable

inferences in Littleton’s favor, given the total lack of evidence

that he is substantially limited in any particular major life

activity, Littleton cannot satisfy the first element of his prima

facie case – that he either is, has a record of, or was regarded

as disabled as that term is defined by the ADA.3 See Hilburn v.

Murata Electronics North America, Inc., 181 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th

Cir. 1999)(“a party...faced with a properly supported summary

judgment motion, is obligated to come forward with extrinsic

evidence which is ‘sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party’s case’” (quoting Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986))). Thus, Littleton’s claim

fails as a matter of law, and Wal-Mart’s motion is due to be

granted. 

Wal-Mart has also filed a motion to strike Littleton’s

Case 2:04-cv-00066-WMA Document 29 Filed 04/12/05 Page 7 of 8
8

submission of evidence in opposition to its motion for summary

judgment. Because summary judgment is proper with or without

consideration of the challenged evidentiary submissions, the

court will deem moot defendant’s motion to strike.

DONE this 12th day of April, 2005.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00066-WMA Document 29 Filed 04/12/05 Page 8 of 8