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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 10 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Garry D en so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

St eak ‘ n S ha ke , Inc

.

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 M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 27 , 20 18 Fi le d: Decem

be r 3, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re WOL LMAN, KELL Y, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Garry Den so n ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng St eak ‘n Sh ak e’s 1

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t on hi s Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act (ADA)
di sc riminat io n c la im

an d h is Mi ss ou ri Work ers ’ Co m pe ns at io n c la im . W e aff

irm.

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Unit ed St at es D ist ric t Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.Den so n br ok e hi s hi p in 20 10 an d un de rwen t to ta l hi p rep la cem en t su rg e r y

.

His su rg eo n de te rm in ed th at Den so n ha d reac he d “ m ax im um m ed ic al im

pr ov em en t”
in th e fal l of 201 1 and pe rm an en tl y res tri ct ed Den so n to cl eri cal or s ed en ta ry work
, wit h no li fti ng

. An ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge de em ed Den so n di sa bl ed in Sep te m be r 20 12 an d a ward ed hi m

So ci al Secu rit y

be ne fit s.

In Nov em be r 20 14
, St eak ‘n Sh ak e hi red Dens on as a fo un ta in op erat or at it s O’ Fal lo n, Mi ss ou ri, lo cat io n. The fo un ta in op erat or job req ui red em pl oyees to st an d,
be nd
, st ret ch
, an d walk th ro ug ho ut th e sh ift
, as well as to li ft an d c arry up to th irt y
po un ds

. Den so n in fo rm ed St eak ‘n Sh ak e t h a t h e s u ffer ed ba ck pr ob le m s an d ha d

un de rg on e hi p rep la cem en t su rg ery. In co nt ras t wit h hi s pe r man e n t m ed ic al

res tri ct io ns , De ns on st at ed th at he co ul d li ft ap pr ox im at el y fif te en to th irt y

po un ds

.

Den so n fel l twi ce at St eak ‘n Sh ak e in earl y 20 15

. Den so n co m m en ced ph y si cal th erap y

in Octo be r 20 15 th ro ug h S te ak ‘ n Sha ke ’s wor ke rs ’ co m pe ns at io n
pr og ram

. In Ja nu ary 20 16
, Dav id Kin g, M.D., ex am in ed Den so n an d in it ia ll y

res tri ct ed hi m to : no li fti ng m or e th an th irt y po un ds ; no kn eel in g, sq ua tt in g, st oo pi ng ,
or cl im bi ng ; an d no walk in g or st an di ng f or m or e th an fo rty-fiv e m in ut es pe r ho ur

. Dr. K i n g e x a m in ed Den so n ag ai n on Feb ru ary 5, 20 16
, an d co nc lu de d th at he ha d

reac he d “ m ax im

um m ed ic al im

pr ov em en t.” Dr. Kin g re sc in de d h is for m er o pi ni on

an d reco m

m en de d th at Den so n rem ai n on th e or ig in al su rg eo n’s m ed ic al res tri ct io ns of cl eri cal or se de nt ary wor k wit h no li fti ng

. S t e a k ‘n Sh ak e th erea fte r rem ov ed
Den so n fro m th e wor k sc he du le fo r a sa fet y ev al ua ti on an d la te r te rm in at ed Den so n’s

em pl oym en t.

Den so n su bs eq ue nt ly fil ed a d i sc riminat io n ch arg e wit h th e Mi ss ou ri
Co m m is si on on Hum an Ri gh ts an d th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp or tu ni ty Co m m is si on (EEOC). In th e ch arg e qu es ti on na ire
, Den so n cl ai m ed th at St eak ‘n Sh ak e co ul d ha ve

acco m m od at ed hi s di sa bi li ty by tra ns ferr in g hi m to “ th e ho st , di sh ro om , an d/ or pr ep
pe rs on ” po si ti on , al l of whi ch req ui red p e r i o d s of st an di ng

. The EEOC is su ed

-2

-Den so n a rig ht to su e le tt er. Den so n th en fil ed su it in fed eral di st ric t co ur t, al le gi ng

t h a t S t e ak ‘n Sh ak e ha d te rm in at ed hi s em pl oym en t be cau se of hi s di sa bi li ty i n vi ol at io n of th e ADA an d th at St eak ‘n Sh ak e ha d ret al ia te d ag ai ns t hi m in vi ol at io n of th e Mi ss ou ri W or ke rs ’ Co m pe ns at io n st at ut e. St eak ‘n Sh ak e m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n b ot h c la im s. 2

W e rev ie w de no vo th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, “ vi ewin g al l ev id en ce an d

reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y .” Bars ta d

v. Mu rray Ct y ., 42 0 F.3 d 88 0, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te whe re “ 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 law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a).

To es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of di sa bi li t y d i s c r i m in at io n, a pl ai nt iff “ m us t sh ow th at he (1 ) ha s a ‘dis ab il it y ’ wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e ADA, (2 ) is a ‘qua li fie d
in di vi du al ’ un de r th e ADA, an d (3 ) ‘su f fere d an ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n as a

res ul t of th e di sa bi li ty.’ ” Fen ne y v. Dak ot a, Mi nn

. & E. R.R. Co
., 32 7 F.3 d 70 7, 71 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) ( q u o t in g Dut y v. Nor to n– Alco a Pro pp an ts , 29 3 F.3 d 48 1, 49 0 (8 th
Ci r. 20 02 )). “ To be a ‘qua li f i e d in di vi du al ’ wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e ADA, an

em pl oyee m us t ‘(1) po ss es s th e req ui si te sk il l, ed uc at io n, ex pe rie nc e, an d tra in in g fo r h[ is ] po si ti on , an d (2 ) be ab le to pe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l job fu nc ti on s, wit h or wit ho ut

r e a s o na bl e acco m

m od at io n.’” Id

. at 71 2 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Heas er v

. Toro Co ., 24 7 F .3d 82 6, 8 30 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1) ).

Den so n fai le d to sh ow th at he was a qu al ifi ed in di vi du al wit hi n th e mea n in g of th e ADA. Alt ho ug h he be li ev ed th at he co ul d pe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l job fu nc ti on s

o f th e fo un ta in op erat or , De ns on ’s p erm an en t m ed ic al res tri ct io ns ba rred hi m f r o m

Den so n di d no t res po nd to St eak ‘n Sh ak e’s arg um en ts in su pp or t of su m m ary 2 jud gm en t on th e ret al ia ti on cl ai m , a nd th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y d e em ed th e cl ai m waiv ed

.
-3

-pe rfo rm in g th e du ti es la id ou t in th e job de sc rip ti on , whi ch he ad m it te d were accu rat e.

W e h av e h el d t ha t “ [t]he ADA do es no t re qu ire an em pl oyer to pe rm it an em

pl oyee
to pe rfo rm a job fu nc ti on th at th e em pl oyee’s ph y si ci an ha s fo rb id de n” an d th at an

em pl oyee’s su bjec ti ve be li ef th at he or sh e can pe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s of th e job is irr el ev an t. Alex an d er v. Nor th la nd In n, 32 1 F.3 d 72 3, 72 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ).
Den so n al so arg ue d th at St e a k ‘n Sh ak e co ul d ha ve acco m m od at ed hi m by

tra ns ferr in g hi m to th e di sh ro om , pr ep pe rs on , or ho st po si ti on at an y St eak ‘n Sh ak e lo cat io n wit hi n th e St

. Lou is m et ro po li ta n area

. Bu t Den so n ad m it te d th at th es e job s

were no t se de nt ary or cl eri cal whe n he co nc ed ed th at th es e p o s i t i o n s req ui red

em pl oyees t o st an d fo r lo ng pe rio ds of ti m e. Acco rd in g t o h is m ed ic al res tri ct io ns , Den so n co ul d no t pe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s of th es e job s. Den so n was th us no t

a qu al ifi ed in di vi du al an d hi s pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n fail s. Fo r th e sa m e

reas on s, a fai lu re-t o- acco m m od at e cl ai m wou l d al so fai l. See Mo se s v. Das sa ul t Fal co n Je t-Wil m in gt on Co rp ., 89 4 F.3 d 91 1, 92 1, 92 4 (8 th C i r. 20 18 ) (co nc lu di ng th at pl ai nt iff ’s fai lu re-t o- acco m m od at e cl ai m fai le d whe n pl ai nt iff co ul d no t sh ow he

was a qu al ifi ed in di vi du al ).

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-4

-