# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 12 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ch ris Sch affh au se r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt if f - Ap pe ll an t

v.

Uni te d P arce l Se rv ic e, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 10 , 20 15 Fi le d: Ju ly 23, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ch ris to ph er L. Sch affh au se r ch al le ng es hi s d e m ot io n fro m m an ag er to

su pe rv is or at Uni te d Parc el Serv ic es (UPS). Sch affh au se r, a whi te m al e, al le ge s race di sc riminat io n un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 81 ; Tit le VII, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e et se q .; an d th e Ark an sa s C iv il Rig ht s Act, Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 23 -1 01 et se q

. (ACRA). He al soas se rts fai lu re to acco m m od at e hi s m ed ic al co nd it io n un de r th e ACRA an d th e ADA,
42 U.S.C. § 12 10 1 et se q

. The di st ric t c o u r t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to UPS. 1

Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

In it ia ll y hi red in 19 87
, Sch affh au se r wor ke d as a Pl an t Engi ne eri ng Man ag er fro m Ja nu ary 1, 20 07 to Mar ch 8, 20 12

. He rece iv ed tra in in g on U P S’s an ti

ha ras sm en t, an ti- dis cr im ina tio n, an d ADA po li ci es

. Acco rd in g to UPS’s Pro fes si on al
Co nd uc t an d An ti -Hara ss m en t Po li cy :

The Co m pa ny pr oh ib it s un pr of

es si on al an d di sc ou rte ou s
act io ns , ev en if th os e act io n s do no t co ns ti tu te un la wfu l
ha ras sm en t.

. . . . Acco rd in g l y, de ro ga to ry or ot he r in ap pr op ria te rem ark s, sl ur s, t hr eat s o r jok es wil l n ot be to le rat ed

.

. . . . Each em pl oyee m

us t ex erci se hi s or he r o wn go od jud ge m en t [s ic ] to av oi d e ng ag in g i n c on du ct th at m ay be

pe rcei ve d b y

ot he rs as h aras sm en t.

In Feb ru ary 20 12
, Sch affh au se r was at wor k ch at ti ng wit h Neal L. Sh ark ey (an
Afri can -Am eri can m an ag er), Que nt in Go o d w i n (an Afri can -Am eri can su pe rv is or ),

an d Haro ld A. W il li am s (an Afri can

- A mer ic an su pe rv is or ). Acco rd in g to
Sch affh au se r, Goo dwi n sa id

, “ I wis h Ro dn ey Bare fie ld wou ld ta ke a swi ng at m e an d

I wou ld kn oc k th at m ot he rf* *r ou t.” Sch affh au se r co m m en te d, “ If he ev er hi t m e, I

wou ld hi t hi m ba ck so ha rd it ’d kn oc k th e bl ack of f hi m.” H e a d mi ts m ak in g th e

co m m en t, th at it co ul d be rac i s t, an d th at it was a m is ta ke

, bu t cl ai m s he was jus t jok in g a nd di d n ot in te nd it to be raci st

.

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-In hi s rep or t t o t h e hu m an res ou rces di rect or , Sch affh au se r cl ai m ed th at hi s

m ed ic al co nd it io n was a “ co nt rib ut in g fac t o r i n [ h is ] po or ch oi ce of wor ds .” He

as ke d th at UPS co ns id er hi s di sa bi li ty, gi ve hi m “ a vo te of co nf id en ce,” an d ke ep hi m

“ in m y cu rren t po si ti on .” The hu m an res ou rces di rect or de m ot ed Sch affh au se r fro m

m an ag er t o s up erv is or

.

Sch affh au se r su ed UPS, al le gi ng rev ers e race d i s c r i m in at io n an d fai lu re to

acco m m od at e a d is ab il it y . The d is tri ct co ur t g ran te d s um m ary jud gm en t t o UPS

.

The “ co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t.” Tor

ge rs on v. Ci ty of Ro ches te r , 64 3 F.3 d 10 31
, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is

ap pr op ria te “ if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al
fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed. R. Civ

. P. 56 (a )

. If th e m ov an t do es so , th e no n mo vi ng pa rty “ m us t do m or e th an si m

pl y sh ow th at
th ere is so m e m et ap hysic al do ub t as to th e m at eri al fact s,” po in ti ng to “ sp eci fic fact s sh owi ng th at th ere is a ge nu in e is su e fo r tri al .” Tor ge rs on , 64 3 F.3d at 10 42

. If the

reco rd co ul d no t le ad a rat io na l tri er of fact to fin d fo r th e no nm ov in g pa rty, th ere is

no ge nu in e is su e fo r tr ia l. Id

.

I.

Sch affh au se r al le ge s race di sc riminat io n un de r Tit le VII, 42 U.S.C. § 19 81
, an d
th e ACRA. Tit le VII pr oh ib it s an em pl oyer fro m di s c riminat in g ag ai ns t an y i nd iv id ua l “ be cau se of su ch in di vi du al ’s race .” 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e– 2( a) ( 1 )

. R a c e di sc riminat io n cl ai m s un de r al l th ree st at ut es are ev al ua te d id en ti cal ly. Se e Dav is v. KAR K-TV

, Inc

. , 42 1 F .3d 69 9, 7 03 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

A pl ai nt iff m ay de feat su m m ary jud gm en t by ei th er of feri ng di rect ev id en ce or

crea ti ng an in fere nc e of un la wfu l d i s cri m in at io n. Tor ge rs on , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 44
, ap pl yi ng McDo nnel

l Do ug la s C

or p. v. Gr een , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 (19 73 ).

-3

-A.

Dire ct e v i d e n ce is “ ev id en ce sh owi ng a sp eci fic li nk be twee n th e al le ge d
di sc riminat or y an im

us an d th e ch al le ng ed de ci si on , su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng by

a rea so na bl e fac t fin de r th at an il le gi ti m at e cri te rio n a ct ua ll y m ot iv at ed th e ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n.” I

d

. “[S] tra y rem ark s in th e wor kp la ce, st at em en ts by

n o nd eci si on m ak ers , or st at em en ts by de ci si on m ak ers un rel at ed to th e de ci si o n a l

pr oc es s” are no t di rect ev id en ce. Twym on v. Wel ls Fa rg o & Co

. , 46 2 F.3 d 92 5, 93 3 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ).

As di rect ev id en ce, Sch affh au se r of fers th e hu m an res ou rces di rect or ’s

s t a t e m en ts ab ou t a qu id pr o qu o. Afte r Sch affh au se r’s co m m en t, Bare fie ld f

i l e d

gr ie va nc es . The h um an res ou rces di rect or tes ti fie d h e th ou gh t t he Uni on m ay ha ve wit hd rawn or se tt le d Bare fie ld ’s gr ie va nc es be cau se UPS de m ot ed Sch affh au se r, bu t
wit ho ut co nt rad ic ti on by Sch affh au se r, th e hu m an res ou rces di rect or sa id th at he “ ha d

no co nv ers at io ns wit h th e Uni o n ” a bo ut Sch affh au se r’s co m m en t or de m ot io n. Sp ecu la ti on ab ou t th e U n i o n ’s moti ve do es no t sh ow a sp eci fic li nk be twee n a di sc riminat or y an im

us an d Sch af

f h a u s e r ’s de m ot io n. The Uni on was no t a de ci si on m ak er, s o i ts st at em en ts or m ot iv es are n ot di rect ev id en ce.

Sch affh au se r al so cl ai m s UPS fai le d to fo ll ow it s Em pl oym en t Dis pu te
Res ol ut io n (EDR) pr oc es s, whi ch req ui res a hu m an res ou rces rep res en ta ti ve to m eet
in fo rm al ly wit h th e em

pl oyee. No hu m an res ou rces rep res en ta ti ve m et in fo rm al ly
wit h Sch affh au se r, an d UPS la te r de ni ed a pe er rev ie w. Acco rd in g to th e reco rd

, th e EDR ad m in is tra to r de ni ed pe e r rev ie w wit ho ut reg ard to race (s in ce 20 08
, fiv e Afri can -Am eri can s were de ni ed pe er rev i e w , a s were fiv e Cau cas ia ns an d on e His pa ni c em

pl oyee). Mo re im

po rta nt ly, Sch affh au se r te st ifi ed he ne ve r he ard an y on e
at UPS, in cl ud in g th e hu m an res ou rces di rect or , sa y an y th in g ne ga ti ve ab ou t hi s race ,

no r do es he arg ue th at an y on e th e r e h as a “ di sc riminat or y at ti tu de ” to ward
Cau cas ia ns . Sch affh au se r ha s n ot id en ti fie d d ire ct ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n.

-4

-B.

Und er McDo nn el l Dou gl as , Scha ff ha use r m ust first es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n. McDo nnel l Dou gl as , 41 1 U.S. at 80 2. If he do es , th e bu rd en sh ift s to th e em

pl oyer to art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc rimin a t or y reas on fo r it s ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n. Se e Dav is v. Je ffer so n Ho sp . As s’ n , 68 5 F.3 d 67 5, 68 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )

. If th e em pl oyer mee t s t h i s bu rd en , th e “ pr es um pt io n of
di sc riminat io n di sa pp ears , req ui rin g th e pl ai nt iff to pr ov e th at th e pr of fere d jus ti fic at io n i s m erel y

a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n.” Id

.

A pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n req ui res th at th e pl ai nt iff “ (1 ) is a m em be r of a pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (2 ) was m eet in g th e le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io ns of th e em pl oyer; (3 )

su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n; an d (4 ) su ffer ed un de r ci rc u ms t an ces
pe rm it ti ng an in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n.” Id

. In a rev ers e-ra ci sm cas e, th e pl ai nt iff

m us t al so sh ow th at “ ba ck gr ou nd ci rcu m st an ces su pp or t th e su sp i c io n th at th e de fen da nt is th at un us ua l em pl oyer who di sc riminat es ag a i n s t t he m ajor it y .”
Ha m m er v. As hcr of

t , 38 3 F .3d 72 2, 7 24 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

Ass um in g S ch affh au se r co ul d e st ab li sh a pr im a faci e cas e, UPS m us t sh ow a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at or y reas on fo r de m ot in g hi m

. Dav is
, 68 5 F.3 d at 68 1.
“T hi s bu rd en is no t on ero us .” Bo ne v. G4S Y ou th Ser vs ., LLC , 6 86 F.3 d 94 8, 95 4 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ).

As it s le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m ina tory reas on to de m ot e Sch affh au se r, UPS rel ie s

on Sch affh au se r’s co m

m en t (“ If he ev er hi t m e, I wou ld hi t hi m b a c k s o h a r d i t’d
kn oc k th e bl ack of

f hi m ”). Eve n Sch affh au se r ag rees th at th e co m m en t co ul d be
raci st an d v io la te s UPS ’s Pro fes si on al Co nd uc t an d An ti -Hara ss m en t Po li cy

.

Sch affh au se r st res se s th at he di d no t in te nd th e co m m en t to be raci st , an d was
ot he rwis e a m od el em

pl oyee. He cl ai m s hi s de m o t i o n w a s di sp ro po rti on at e an d

-5

-u n f

a i r

. The qu es ti on is no t whe th er UPS m ad e a go od de ci si on , o r ev en a fai r on e

. The qu es ti on is whe th er it to ok an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n b a se d on a di sc riminat or y an im

us

. Em pl oyee di sc ip li ne , as lo ng as it is no t co nd uc te d in a di sc riminat or y fas hi on , is a bu si ne ss jud gm en t no t rev ie wed by th e co ur ts

. Se e id

. at
95 5.

Bec au se UPS art ic ul at es a le gi ti m at e, no nd i s c r i mina to ry reas on , th e bu rd en sh ift s to Sch affh au se r to sh ow th at th e “ pr of fere d jus ti fic at io n is m erel y a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n.” Dav is
, 68 5 F.3 d at 68 1. “ The re are at le as t two way s a pl ai nt iff m ay de m on st rat e a m at eri al qu es ti on of f act reg ard in g p ret ex t.” Tor ge rs on , 6 43 F.3 d at
10 47

. “ A pl ai nt iff m ay sh ow th at th e em pl oyer’s ex pl an at io n is un wor th y of cred en ce

. . . be cau se i t ha s no ba si s in fact

. Alt ern at iv el y , a pl ai nt iff m ay sh ow pr et ex t by

pe rs ua di ng th e co ur t th at a [p ro hi bi te d] reas on m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed th e em pl oyer.”
Id

. (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ A pl ai nt iff m ay sh ow pr et ex t, am on g ot he r way s, by sh owi ng th at an em pl oyer (1 ) fai le d

to fo ll ow it s own po li ci es , (2 ) tre at ed si m il arl y -s it ua te d em pl o ye e s in a di sp arat e

m an ne r, or (3 ) sh ift ed it s ex pl an at io n of the em pl oym en t deci si on .” Lak e v. Y el lo w Tra ns p., I nc. , 59 6 F .3d 87 1, 8 74 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

Sch affh au se r arg ue s th at UPS fai le d to fo ll ow it s own EDR an d In ve st ig at io n
gu id el in es

. Sp eci fic al ly, h e ob jects th at al th ou gh UPS in te rv ie wed m an y pe op le , i t
di d no t fu ll y in ve st ig at e al l rel ev an t fact s an d in fo rm at io n an d di d no t co m pl et e a
rep or t wit h fu ll an al y si s of al l fact ua l di sp ut es an d in co ns is te nc ie s. Sch affh au se r al so

co m pl ai ns th at he was de ni ed acce ss to bo th an in fo rm al m eet in g an d a pe er rev ie w.

“ Alt ho ug h an em

pl oyer’s vi ol at io n of it s own p ol ic ie s m ay be in di cat iv e of

pr et ex t, th at is no t al way s so .” And er so n v. Durh am D&M, LLC
, 60 6 F.3 d 51 3, 52 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Not hi ng in th es e fact s sh ow th at UPS was m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed by

race th an by it s pr of

fere d jus ti fic at io n. “ An em pl oyer can cert ai nl y ch oo se ho w to ru n it s bu si ne ss , in cl ud in g no t to fo ll ow it s own pe rs on ne l po li ci es reg ard in g te rm in at io n

-6

-of an em

pl oyee or ha nd li ng cl ai m s of di sc riminat io n, as lo ng as it do es no t un la wfu ll y di sc riminat e in do in g so .” McC ul lo ug h v. U

n i v . o f A r k

. fo r Med

. Sci s. , 55 9 F.3 d
85 5, 86 3 (8 th C i r

. 2 00 9)

. Eve n if th e em pl oyer’s act s are un fai r, th ere ha s to be

ev id en ce co nn ect in g th e un fai rn es s to a di s c r im in at or y an im us

. Sch affh au se r do es

no t i de nt ify any su ch ev id en ce.

Sch affh au se r al so cl ai m s th a t UPS tre at ed si m il arl y si tu at ed em pl oyees di ffer en tl y , sh owi ng a di sc riminat or y an im us

. “At t he pr et ex t st ag e, th e te st fo r de te rm in in g whe th er em

pl oyees are si m il arl y si tu at ed to a pl ai nt iff is a rig or ou s on e.”
Bo ne , 68 6 F.3d at 95 6. A pl ai nt iff “ m us t s ho w th at [he ] an d t he em pl oyees o ut si de
of [h is ] pr ot ect ed gr ou p were si m il arl y si tu at ed i n a l l r e le va nt res pe ct s.” Id

. The

po te nt ia l co m

pa rat or s m

us t “ ha ve de al t wit h th e sa m e su pe rv is or , ha ve be en su bjec t

to th e s am e st an da rd s, an d en ga ge d in th e sa m e co nd uc t wit ho ut an y m it ig at in g or di st in gu is hi ng cir cu m st an ces .” Id

.

Sch affh au se r of

fers as co m

pa rat or s Goo dwi n, Bare fie ld

, an d si x ot he rs

. Non e is s im il arl y si tu at ed

. The si x ot he r co m pa rat or s di d no t m ak e co m m en ts th at were raci al in na tu re. Goo dwi n, Bare fie l d

, a n d o n e ot he r em pl oyee were no t m an ag ers whe n t h e y m ad e th ei r co m m en ts , an d th us th ei r co m m en ts were no t di rect ed at a

su bo rd in at e of an ot he r race

. Goo dwi n, Bare fie ld

, an d th e ot he r em pl oyer were no t 2

“ su bjec t to th e sa m e st an da rd s,” “ en ga ge d in th e sa m e co nd uc t wi t h o u t an y

m it ig at in g” cir cu m st an ces , or “ si m il arl y si tu at ed in all rel ev an t re sp ect s.” Se e Id

.

Sch affh au se r cl ai m s Goo dwi n may ha ve cal le d Bare fie ld a “ bl ack 2

m ot he rf* *r ”—n ot jus t a “ m o t h e r f * * r

. ” Eve n if Goo dwi n sa id th at , he was a

su pe rv is or (n ot a m an ag er), an d di d no t su pe rv is e Bare fie ld

. Se e Ri se r v. Tar

ge t Co rp . , 45 8 F.3 d 81 7, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (co -wo rk ers are no t si m il arl y si tu at ed whe re,

am on g ot he r th in gs , th ey ha ve di ffer en t m an ag em en t an d jo b d u ti es ); Ha rv ey v. Anhe us er -Bus ch, In c. , 38 F.3 d 96 8, 97 2 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (d is pa rit y in di sc ip li ne

warra nt ed pa rtl y

be cau se on e em

pl oyee is su bo rd in at e to th e o th er).

-7

-Fi na ll y , Sch affh au se r sa y s th at a pr oh ib it ed reas on m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed UPS.

He ag ai n no te s th e hu m an res ou rces di rect or ’s te st im on y th at th e Uni on m ay ha ve wit hd rawn or se tt le d Bare fie ld ’s gr ie va nc es be cau se o f S ch affh au se r’s de m ot io n. Sch affh au se r ha s to do m or e th an cl ai m “ so m e m et ap hysic al do ub t as to th e m at eri al
fact s” ; he m

us t po in t to “ sp eci fic fact s sh owi ng th at th ere is a ge nu in e is su e fo r tri al .”
Tor ge rs on , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 42

. No sp eci fic fact s su gg es t th at UPS’s act io ns were m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed by race th an by its pro ffer ed jus ti fic at io n. 3

In shor t, Schaff ha us er ha s no t of

fere d an y “ ba ck gr ou nd ci rcu m sta nc es ” to show

t h a t UPS is “ th at un us ua l em pl oyer who di sc riminat es ag ai ns t th e m ajor it y .”
Ha m m er , 38 3 F

. 3 d a t 72 4. Yet ev en if he ha d, UPS of fere d a le gi ti m at e,

no nd is cri m in at or y reas on fo r de m ot in g Sch affh au se r, an d Sch affh au se r ha s fai le d to

es ta bl is h a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact th at th e rea so n i s a p ret ex t.

II.

Sch affh au se r al so as se rts a fai lu re-t o- acco m m od at e cl ai m un de r th e ADA an d
th e ACRA. Se e Duty v. Nor to n-Al co a Pro pp an ts , 29 3 F.3 d 48 1, 49 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at co ur ts us e th e sa m e st an da rd s to ev al ua te cl ai m s br ou gh t un de r bo th

st at ut es ).

The ADA p r o h ib it s em pl oyers fro m di sc riminat in g “ ag ai ns t a qu al ifi ed
in di vi du al on th e ba si s of di sa bi li ty in reg ard to job ap pl ic at io n pr oc ed ur es , th e hi rin g, ad va nc em en t, or di sc ha rg e of em pl oyees, em

pl oyee co m

pe ns at io n, job tra in in g, an d

Sch affh au se r al lu de s to a m ix ed -m ot iv e cl ai m un de r 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (m ) 3 (“ an un la wfu l em

pl oym en t p r act ic e is es ta bl is he d whe n th e co m pl ai ni ng pa rty de m on st rat es th at race

. . . was a m ot iv at in g fact or fo r an y em pl oym en t pr act ic e, ev en t ho ug h ot he r fact or s al so m ot iv at ed th e pr act ic e”). Eve n un de r a m ix ed

- mo t i v e

an al y si s, th e pl ai nt iff “ m

us t in it ia ll y pr es en t ev id en ce, ei th er di rect or ci rcu m st an ti al

, sh owi ng a sp eci fic li nk be twee n th e di sc r i mi n a t o ry an im us an d th e ch al le ng ed de ci si on .” Phil

ip p v . ANR Fr ei

gh t Sy s. , 61 F.3d 66 9, 6 73 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)

.
-8

-ot he r te rm s, co nd it io ns , an d pr iv il eg es of em pl oym en t.” 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( a)

. Thi s in cl ud es “ no t m ak in g re as on ab le acco m m od at io ns to th e kn own ph y si cal or m en ta l
li m it at io ns of an ot he rwis e qu al ifi ed in di vi du al wit h a di sa bi li ty who is an ap pl ic an t

or em pl oyee.” § 1 21 12 (b)( 5) (A)

.

Sch affh au se r m

us t es ta bl is h bo th a pr im a f a c i e cas e of di sc riminat io n ba se d

o n d i s ab il it y an d a fai lu re to acco m m od at e it

. To es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e ca s e o f
di sc riminat io n ba se d on d i s ab il it y , S ch affh au se r m us t sh ow th at he “ (1 ) is di sa bl ed
wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e ADA; (2 ) is a qu al ifi ed in di vi du al un de r th e ADA; an d (3 )
ha s su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t d e c i s i o n b e cau se of th e di sa bi li ty.” Ka ll ai l v. Al li an t Ener

gy Co rp . Ser vs ., In c. , 69 1 F.3 d 92 5, 93 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )

. To be

co ns id ered d i s a b l e d wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e ADA, Sch affh au se r m us t sh ow “ a ph y si cal or m en ta l imp a i r men t th at su bs ta nt ia ll y li m it s on e or m or e m ajor li fe

act iv it ie s.” 42 U.S.C. § 12 10 2( 1)

.

Sch affh au se r m ai nt ai ns th at a s t e r oi d sh ot he rece iv ed be fo re hi s co m m en t

cau se d ch an ge s to hi s ph y si cal an d ne ur ol og ic al co nd it io n, in cl ud in g hi gh bl oo d

pr es su re, m oo d swi ng s, an d in crea s ed irr it ab il it y

. He arg ue s th at th is ph y si cal an d

m en ta l im

pa irment su bs ta nt ia ll y li m it e d a major li fe act iv it y
 ̄ in te ract in g wit h

ot he rs —an d a m ajor b o d i l y fu nc ti on —h is ne ur ol og ic al syste m

. Se e 29 C.F.R. §
16 30 .2(h )(i )

.

Ass um in g Sch affh au se r ha s m ad e a pr im a faci e cas e, he m us t al so es ta bl is h a fai lu re to acco m

m od at e hi s di sa bi li ty. “ To de te rm in e whe th er an acco m m od at io n fo r th e em pl oyee is ne ces sa ry , an d if so , wha t th at a c c o m m od at io n m ig ht be

, it is

n e c e ss ary fo r th e em

pl oyer an d em

pl oyee to en ga ge in an ‘int erac ti ve pr oc es s.’” Peyt on v. Fr ed ’

s S t o r es of Ar k., In c. , 56 1 F.3 d 90 0, 90 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Thi s in te ract iv e, acco m

m od at io n -s eek in g pr oc es s m us t be in it ia te d by th e di sa bl ed

em pl oyee, who m

us t al ert hi s em

pl oyer to th e ne ed fo r an a c co m m od at io n an d

pr ov id e rel ev an t de ta il s of hi s di sa bi li ty. EEOC v. Co nver gy s Cus to m er Mgm t. Grp

. ,

-9

-49 1 F.3 d 79 0, 79 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). To sh ow th at an em pl oyer di d no t en ga ge in an in te ract iv e p ro ces s, t he em pl oyee m us t p ro ve :

1) th e em pl oyer kn ew ab ou t t he em pl oyee’s di sa bi li ty; 2) th e em pl oyee req ue st ed acco m

m od at io ns or as si st an ce fo r hi s o r he r di sa bi li ty; 3 ) th e em pl oyer di d no t m ak e a go od fai th effo rt t o a s s i s t th e em pl oyee in see ki ng acco m

m od at io ns ; an d 4 ) t h e e m p l o ye e c o u l d h a v e b e e n r e a s o n a b l y

acco m m od at ed bu t fo r th e em

pl oyer’s lac k o f go od fai th

.

Peyt on , 56 1 F .3d at 9 02

.

Here, th e th ird an d fo ur th fact or s are no t co nt es te d. W ha t is co nt es te d is whe n

an d to wha t ex te nt UPS kn ew th at Sch a f f h au se r ha d an y so rt of di sa bi li ty.
Sch affh au se r ad m it te d at hi s de po si ti on t h a t h e ne ve r req ue st ed a fo rm al

acco m m od at io n. Befo re hi s co m m en t, S c h a ffh au se r cert ai nl y di d no t in fo rm hi s

em pl oyer of th e “ rel ev an t de ta il s” of hi s di sa bi li ty; th e m os t he cl ai m s is th at a hu m an

res ou rces m an ag er sa w hi m ta ke hi s bl oo d pr es su re an d th at UPS kn ew he ha d be en
pr ev io us ly in

jure d in an acci de nt

. Sch affh au se r di d no t in it ia te th e in te ract iv e pr oc es s by gi vi ng hi s em

pl oyer no ti ce of hi s di sa bi li ty

. S e e Co nver gy s Cus to m er Mg m t. Grp

. , 49 1 F .3d at 7 95

.

Sch affh au se r as se rts UPS kn ew of hi s di sa bi li ty be cau se , aft e r h is co m m en t,
he st at ed th at hi s m ed ic al co nd it io n was a “ co nt rib ut in g fact or in [h is ] po or ch oi ce of

wor ds ,” an d req ue st ed th at UPS “ al lo w [h im ] to st ay in [h is ] cu rren t po si ti on .” Thi s
req ue st , ev en if co ns id ered an acco m m od at io n req ue st , was un ti m el y be cau se it cam e aft er Sch affh au se r’s co m m en t. As th e d i s t r i c t co ur t art ic ul at ed

, li ab il it y is no t

es ta bl is he d w h e re “ an em pl oyee en ga ge s in m is co nd uc t, le arn s of an im pe nd in g ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n, an d th en in fo rm s hi s em pl oyer of a di sa bi li ty th at is th e

su pp os ed cau se of th e pr io r m is co nd uc t an d req ue st s an acco m m od at io n.”

-1 0-Scha

ffha us er v. Unit

ed Par cel Ser v. , 2 01 4 W L 1 9 7 6 8 4
, a t *1 , * 10 (E.D. Ark . J an

. 15
, 20 14 ). Se e al

so Hi ll v. Ka ns as Ci ty Ar ea Tra ns p. Aut h.
, 18 1 F.3 d 89 1, 89 4 (8 th
Ci r. 19 99 ); Jo nes v . N

at io nwi de Life In s. Co

. , 69 6 F.3 d 78
, 90 (1 st Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ W he n an em

pl oyee req ue st s an acco m m od at io n fo r th e fir s t t im e on ly aft er it
be co m es cl ear th at an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n is im m in en t, su ch a req ue st can be
‘too li tt le

, to o la te ’”); Ha lp er n v. Wa ke Fo re st Univ

. Hea lt h Sci s. , 66 9 F.3 d 45 4, 46 5 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [T]he la w do es no t req ui re th e [d efen da nt ] to ig no re m is co nd uc t th at
ha s oc cu rred be cau se th e [cl ai m an t] su bs eq ue nt ly as se rts it was t h e res ul t of a d is ab il it y ”); Dav il

a v. Ques t Co rp . , 11 3 Fed

. App x. 84 9, 85 4 (1 0t h C i r

. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ [E]xcu si ng wor kp la ce m is co nd uc t to pr ov id e a f r e s h s t art /s eco nd ch an ge to an

em pl oyee who se di sa bi li ty c o u l d b e of fere d as an aft er-t he -fac t ex cu se is no t a
req ui red acco m

m od at io n u nd er t he ADA”).

Sch affh au se r di d no t req u e s t a cco m m od at io n or in fo rm UPS of th e rel ev an t
de ta il s of hi s di sa bi li ty. He fai ls to est ab li sh a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact on hi s ADA clai m

.

** ** ** *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-