Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02552/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02552-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paula J. Hunter
Appellant
Wal-Mart Stores
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2552

___________

Paula J. Hunter, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 26, 2004

Filed: May 7, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Paula Hunter appeals the district court’s1

 grant of summary judgment to

defendant Wal-Mart in Hunter’s action brought under the Americans with Disabilities

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (ADA), and dismissal without prejudice of Hunter’s

state-law claim that she was wrongfully denied medical insurance benefits. Having

carefully reviewed the record, see Dropinski v. Douglas County, 298 F.3d 704, 706

(8th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of summary judgment); Garfield v. Kansas City S.

Appellate Case: 03-2552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2004 Entry ID: 1764873 
-2-

Ry. Co., 907 F.2d 841, 842 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (abuse of discretion review

of dismissal without prejudice), we affirm. 

As to her ADA claim, Hunter alleged that Wal-Mart failed to accommodate her

need for a position that limits the amount of time she spends on her feet. Assuming

that Hunter’s genetic blood-clot disorder qualifies as a disability under the ADA, we

agree with the district court that Hunter did not create a trialworthy issue as to

whether Wal-Mart failed to make a good faith effort to accommodate her. The

undisputed evidence showed that Wal-Mart was first put on notice of Hunter’s

request for an accommodation no earlier than January 15, 2002. Hunter was granted

medical leave from January 30 through March 25, and from April 3 to 22. Upon her

return, in response to a request from Hunter's doctor dated April 15, Wal-Mart

transferred her to a position that would require less standing, and when the demands

of that position proved unsatisfactory for Hunter’s condition, Wal-Mart transferred

her again, to a position that has proved satisfactory. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)

(2003) (appropriate reasonable accommodation determined through informal,

interactive process between employer and employee); Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957,

960 (8th Cir. 2002) (employee must show that employer did not make good faith

effort to assist employee in seeking accommodation, and but for employer’s lack of

good faith, employee could have been accommodated). 

We affirm the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Hunter’s medicalinsurance claim, as it is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (ERISA). We note that Hunter is free to pursue this

claim by filing an action under ERISA. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2004 Entry ID: 1764873