Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01982/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01982-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Central Arkansas Transit Authority
Appellee
John Davis
Appellee
Sandra Denton
Appellant
Mr. Keith Jones
Appellee

Document Text:

1

Ms. Denton also named John Davis, the president of her union local, but he

does not appear to have been personally served, and he did not answer the complaint.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1982

___________

Sandra Fay Denton, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Central Arkansas Transit Authority, *

originally sued as Central Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED]

Transit; Mr. Keith Jones; John Davis, *

Local 704 Union President, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2005

Filed: March 4, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sandra Denton appeals the district court's dismissal of her employmentdiscrimination suit against the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) and

CATA employee Keith Jones.1

Appellate Case: 04-1982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2005 Entry ID: 1874609 
-2-

Ms. Denton was disciplined and later terminated for sick-leave absences from

her job as a bus driver for CATA. CATA agreed to reinstate Ms. Denton if she took

and passed a Department of Transportation (DOT) physical. Although she had

previously passed a DOT physical, and this had been used as evidence that she was

abusing her sick leave, she failed the physical and was not reinstated. She then filed

the instant suit asserting that by failing to accommodate her with suitable work, and

by terminating her employment, defendants violated her rights under Title VI and VII,

the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Arkansas

Civil Rights Act. The district court dismissed Ms. Denton's complaint for failure to

exhaust DOT administrative remedies, citing Harris v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc.,

339 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2003).

In Harris, the defendant refused to hire the plaintiff because a DOT physician

found him unfit for duty under DOT regulations. The physician's report conflicted

with a prior physician's report that had reached the opposite conclusion. Because

DOT regulations provide appeal procedures where there is disagreement between the

driver's physician and the physician for the motor carrier concerning the driver's

qualifications, we held that the plaintiff first had to exhaust his administrative

remedies. See Harris, 339 F.3d at 638. By contrast, Ms. Denton does not seek to

challenge defendants' refusal to reinstate her based on the findings of the DOT

physician; rather she challenges her earlier termination, which was a disciplinary

matter, and defendants' failure to accommodate her. Thus Harris is inapposite, and

we do not believe that Ms. Denton was required to exhaust her administrative

remedies with DOT prior to bringing this suit. 

We therefore reverse and remand this case to the district court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2005 Entry ID: 1874609