Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03848/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03848-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis J. Erno
Appellee
Minnesota Department of Revenue
Appellee
John D. Richter
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3848

___________

John D. Richter, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Minnesota Department of Revenue; *

Dennis J. Erno, Deputy Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 26, 2005

Filed: October 31, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John D. Richter appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his employment-discrimination action against the Minnesota Department of

Revenue (MDOR) and an MDOR deputy commissioner. Having carefully reviewed

the record and considered Richter’s arguments, we agree with the district court that

Richter failed to create any trialworthy issues as to whether he had a qualifying

disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See 42 U.S.C. §

Appellate Case: 04-3848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2005 Entry ID: 1969040
-2-

12102(2) (defining disability); Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 474 (8th Cir.

2005) (standard of review); Wood v. Crown Redi-Mix, Inc., 339 F.3d 682, 684 (8th

Cir. 2003) (prima facie case under ADA). The only potential major life activity about

which the record contained any evidence was working, and according to Richter’s

treating psychologist, Richter’s mental problems might have caused problems only if

he returned to the job he then held, but otherwise he could have worked. See Toyota

Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 200 (2002) (even assuming working

is major life activity, claimant would be required to show inability to work in broad

class of jobs). Richter could not avoid the properly supported summary judgment

motion merely by arguing that he could produce evidence at trial. See Sallis, 408 F.3d

at 474 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) requires entry of summary judgment, after adequate time

for discovery and upon motion, against party who fails to make showing sufficient to

establish existence of element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party

will bear burden of proof at trial). 

Richter’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2005 Entry ID: 1969040