1The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1765

___________

Edward Streifel, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of North Dakota. 

Dakota Boys Ranch Association, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: May 2, 2000

 Filed: May 9, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Edward Streifel appeals the District Court’s1 judgment in favor of Dakota Boys

Ranch Association (Ranch) following a bench trial on his failure-to-hire claim under

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994 & Supp.

III 1997). For reversal, Streifel argues the District Court erred in concluding that he

was not disabled by osteoarthritis and that Ranch did not regard him as disabled.
-2-

Having carefully considered the record, we conclude judgment in favor of Ranch

was proper. To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Streifel had to show he

was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, was qualified to perform the essential

functions of the position with or without accommodation, and suffered an adverse

employment action because of the disability. See Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc.,

188 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir. 1999). Under the ADA, disability means “(A) a physical

or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities

of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having

such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (1994).

We conclude Streifel failed to demonstrate that he had an impairment

substantially limiting a major life activity–in this case, either walking or working.

Streifel testified to being able to do whatever physical activities he wanted, including

walking several miles, climbing three flights of stairs, and dragging deer after

successful hunts. Although he also testified he often experienced pain after engaging

in these activities, this moderate limitation does not constitute a “disability” under the

ADA. See Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 1999) (moderate

limitations on major life activities, such as difficulty walking long distances or climbing

stairs without getting fatigued, do not suffice to constitute “disability” under ADA),

cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 794 (2000). In addition, Streifel did not show that he was

substantially limited in the major life activity of working, as it is undisputed that he was

working with troubled juveniles when he interviewed with Ranch. Cf. Berg v. Norand

Corp., 169 F.3d 1140, 1145 (8th Cir.) (finding no substantial limitation where,

subsequent to her termination, plaintiff found similar employment and admitted to

having never been unemployed), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 174 (1999). 

We also conclude Streifel failed to demonstrate that Ranch regarded him as

disabled. Streifel admitted he was probably not stiff and sore at the time of the

interview and did not recall having a limp. Moreover, even assuming as true that the

Ranch interviewer told Streifel that he appeared incapable of performing the physical
-3-

requirements of the child-care-worker position because of his condition, we conclude

this would not show that the interviewer regarded Streifel as disabled. See Miller v.

City of Springfield, 146 F.3d 612, 614-15 (8th Cir. 1998) (employer must regard

plaintiff’s overall employment opportunities as being limited, and not simply regard

plaintiff as being unable to perform job of choice). We further note it is undisputed that

the interviewer recognized, and was favorably impressed by, Streifel’s experience in

working with juveniles. Cf. Smith v. City of Des Moines, 99 F.3d 1466, 1474 (8th Cir.

1996) (rejecting “regarded as” claim where plaintiff did not suggest employer believed

he was unable to perform other jobs and presented no evidence to support that

proposition).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.