Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02411/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02411-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2411

___________

Eddie P. R. Baskin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

St. Louis Beer Sales, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2004

Filed: November 12, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eddie P. R. Baskin appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit. Baskin sued St.

Louis Beer Sales (SLBS) because he was terminated in February 2000 after a workrelated knee injury. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm. See Epps v.

City of Pine Lawn, 353 F.3d 588, 591 (8th Cir. 2003) (de novo standard of review).

Appellate Case: 03-2411 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2004 Entry ID: 1833182 
-2-

Initially, we reject SLBS’s reasserted argument that Baskin’s complaint was

untimely. See Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. W.G. Samuels Co., 370 F.3d 755, 758 (8th

Cir. 2004) (party that prevailed in district court need not file cross-appeal to raise

alternative grounds for affirmance); Warren v. Dep’t of Army, 867 F.2d 1156, 1160-

61 (8th Cir. 1989) (where complaint was filed on time, and there was 30-day delay

in consideration of in forma pauperis application and motion for counsel, equity

weighed against precluding claimant from pursuing federal court action). 

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Baskin had to show he had a

disability within the meaning of the ADA, he was able to perform the essential

functions of his truck-driving job with or without reasonable accommodation, and he

was terminated because of his disability. See Duty v. Norton-Alcoa Proppants, 293

F.3d 481, 490 (8th Cir. 2002). Assuming, as did the district court, that Baskin had

a qualifying disability, we agree with the district court that Baskin did not create a

trialworthy issue as to whether assigning him to make deliveries in a box truck was

a reasonable accommodation. See Alexander v. Northland Inn, 321 F.3d 723, 726-27

(8th Cir. 2003) (ADA plaintiff has burden to prove he can perform essential functions

of job with reasonable accommodation); Dropinski v. Douglas County, 298 F.3d 704,

709-10 (8th Cir. 2002) (job restructuring is possible accommodation under ADA, but

employer need not reallocate or eliminate essential functions of job); Benson v.

Northwest Airlines, Inc., 62 F.3d 1108, 1114 (8th Cir. 1995) (reassignment to vacant

position is possible accommodation under ADA, but creating new position is not

required). Accordingly, the district court correctly declined to consider Baskin’s

interactive-process argument. See Dropinski, 298 F.3d at 710 (where court had

determined that potential accommodations set forth by employee placed undue burden

on employer, any discussion concerning interactive process was superfluous). To the

extent Baskin is arguing that SLBS should have reasonably accommodated him by

arranging for knee surgery and an extended leave, he did not raise such an argument

in his summary judgment resistance. See Smith v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, 99 F.3d

Appellate Case: 03-2411 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2004 Entry ID: 1833182 
-3-

1466, 1473 (8th Cir. 1996) (grant of summary judgment will not be reversed on basis

of argument not presented below). 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2411 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2004 Entry ID: 1833182