Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01190/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01190-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Implement Co.
Appellee
Ronald Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable F.A. Gossett, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Nebraska, deciding the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1190

___________

Ronald Smith, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Frank Implement Co., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2006

Filed: July 19, 2006 

___________

Before BYE, LAY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Smith (“Smith”) brought suit against his former employer, Frank

Implement Company (“Frank Implement”), alleging employment discrimination in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (“ADA”),

and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1101 to 48-

1125 (“NFEPA”). Smith appeals the magistrate judge’s1

 grant of summary judgment

in favor of Frank Implement. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1190 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2006 Entry ID: 2068974
-2-

Based on our de novo review, Baucom v. Holiday Cos., 428 F.3d 764, 766 (8th

Cir. 2005) (standard of review), the district court did not err in granting summary

judgment. Smith failed to establish that he is qualified to perform the essential

functions of the “parts person” position at Frank Implement, with or without

accommodation. See Dropinski v. Douglas County, 298 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 2002)

(elements of a prima facie disability discrimination case). The Frank Implement

employee handbook describes the company’s goal of providing prompt quality service

to customers. The handbook lists various duties assigned to a parts person, including

“other duties as assigned.” According to the affidavit of Bryan Frank, Frank

Implement’s General Manager, the parts person position at Frank Implement requires,

among other things, operating and working around dangerous equipment, obtaining

parts in elevated storage areas accessible only by scaffolding or ladder, using a

forklift, lifting heavy objects, and working alone during the “on call” shift on nights

and weekends. The parts manager also provided testimony regarding the amount of

time a parts person spends performing certain functions. Contrary to Smith’s

assertions, there is not an issue of fact regarding the essential functions of his job. See

id. at 707 (discussing the evidence an employer may provide to establish the essential

functions of a job) (citing Heaser v. Toro Co., 247 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2001)). 

Smith’s doctors have recommended that, due to his seizure disorder, he not

operate or work near dangerous machinery, avoid unrestrained high places such as

ladders or scaffolding, and that he not drive a forklift. We agree with the magistrate

judge that while Smith contends he can perform a number of other parts person duties,

he never satisfactorily addressed his ability to perform the duties listed above. After

careful consideration of the record, we conclude there is no indication that Smith is

capable of performing the essential functions of his position without accommodation.

Moreover, we conclude there is no reasonable accommodation that would allow

Smith to perform the essential functions of his job. Smith contends that the

accommodation he seeks would not unduly burden Frank Implement because he could

Appellate Case: 06-1190 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2006 Entry ID: 2068974
-3-

perform additional duties currently completed by other Frank Implement employees

and would only require help “in a few of the responsibilities” of a parts person. In

addition, Smith argues Frank Implement’s failure to engage in an interactive process

to determine reasonable accommodation creates an issue of material fact, making

summary judgment inappropriate. 

The evidence in this case suggests that Smith cannot perform numerous

activities required of a parts person. Therefore, Frank Implement, a small company

with relatively few employees, would have to significantly change the layout of its

facility or the work structure of other employees in order to accommodate Smith. 

“While job restructuring is a possible accommodation under the ADA, this court has

held that an employer need not reallocate or eliminate the essential functions of a job

to accommodate a disabled employee.” Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 188

F.3d 944, 950 (8th Cir. 1999). In light of our conclusion that Frank Implement cannot

accommodate Smith without undue burden, we need not discuss the interactive

process. See Dropinski, 298 F.3d at 710.

For the above stated reasons, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1190 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2006 Entry ID: 2068974