## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT RA L P H E NDL I CH ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. YE L L OW COR P OR AT I ON, a k a Y e llo w T ra n s p o rt a tio n In c .,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 2215

OR DER B efor e KELLY , B RI S CO E , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. T hi s m at t eri s befor e the courton M r . E ndl i ch’ s pet i t i on forpanel re h e a ri n g . U p o n c o n s id e ra tio n , th e p a n e l g ra n ts th e p e titio n fo r r e h e a ri n g in p a rt . A copyof an a m ended de ci s i on i s att ache d t o thi s or der , w hi ch r efl ect s a cha nge t o one s ent ence . T he pet i t i on i s gr ant ed as t o thatone cha nge. I n al l other r es pect s , t he pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng i s deni ed. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt E L IS A B E T H A . S H U M A K E R , C lerk B y:D ep u tyC lerkA ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. -2- 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

RA L P H E NDL I CH , P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. YE L L OW COR P OR AT I ON, a k a Y e llo w T ra n s p o rt a tio n In c ., D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 2215 ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 4 - 2 6 5 - L C S - K B M)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , B RI S CO E , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. R al ph E ndl i ch appe al s t he di s m i s s al of hi s s ui ton s um m aryj udgm ent agai ns thi s form erempl oy er , Y el l ow C orpor at i on, aka Y el l ow T r ans por t at i on I nc. ( “Y el l ow ”) , foral l eged vi ol at i ons of the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ctof 1990-3-

(“ A D A ” ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 1 -1 2 2 1 3 . W e e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and AF F I RM . W hen Endl i ch appl i ed fora l i nehaul dr i verpos i t i on w i th Y el l ow , he s t at ed th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n in v o lv e d in a n yw o rk -re late d in c id e n ts c a u sin g d a m a g e to fac i l i t i es , equi pm ent , pr opert y , orotherper s ons i n the t en y ear s pr i ort o the appl i cat i on dat e. T hi s w as i ncorr ect . E ndl i ch had be en i nj ur ed i n a truck acc i dentt w o y ear s befor e hi s appl i cat i on w hi l e w or ki ng forhi s pr evi ous em p loy er, C o n so li d ated F reigh tw ay s. A fter the ac cide n t, h e u n d erw en t surg ery for i njur i es he sust ai ned t o h i s shoulder, and he sou gh tand recei ved w orkers ’ compensa t i on benef

i t s fr om t he Texas W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on C om m i s s i on (“T W C C ”). Y el l ow hi r ed Endl i ch, and he unde rw enta pr e- empl oym entphy s i cal exami nat i on. H e al s o par t i ci pat ed i n a phy s i cal per form ance t es t , w hi ch he p a ss e d . E n d lich c laim s th a t h e in fo rm e d Y e llo w ’s e x a m in in g p h y sic ian a b o u t h is sh o u lder inju ryd u ri n g h is ph y sical an d that the p h y sici an ind icated that the injury wo u l d n o tp r o h i b i tE n d l i c h f r o m p e r fo r mi n g s e r v i c e s fo rYe l l o w. S o o n a f ter E n d lich sta rte d , Y e llo w ’s la b o r a n d e m p lo ym e n t co u n se l, M a tt B raz ea l, rec eive d a lett er f rom T o d d R icha rds, an att o rne yrep rese n ti n g E n d li ch ’s previ ou s em ploy er, t hat r equ est ed co pies of E nd l i ch’s appli cat i on do cum ents , par t i cul ar l yt hos e dea l i ng w i t h anyphy s i cal per form ance t es t s . R i char ds ’ l et t er in d ica ted th a t E n d lich h a d filed a w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n c laim a s a re su lt o f h isT hi s cas e i s t hus unl i ke M ar x v. Schnuck M arket s , I nc. , 76 F. 3d 324 1 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) , i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff’ s w i fe, an empl oy ee of defe ndantSchnuck M arket s , at t empt ed t o ci r cumventSchnuck’ s i nform al pol i cyof nothi r i ng the s pous e of a curr entempl oy ee bypr et endi ng thats he had ne verm etherhus band at t he t i m e he a ppl i ed fora j ob. Fr om i t s hum bl e begi nni ngs , t hi s char ade p ro g re ss e d f

ro m a fe ig n e d c o u rtsh ip b e tw e e n tw o e m p lo y e e s to a b a c h e lo r p a rty arr anged os t ens i bl yt o cel ebr at e the pos eur - hus band’ s “l as thour s of fr eedom. ” S h o rtlyth e re a f

ter , p lain tiff ’s w ife , the tem p o ra rilyth e n n o t-so tem p o ra rily M rs. M a rx , n o tifie d S c h n u c k th a t sh e b e liev e d it w a s fa ili n g to p a yo v e rtim e in a c c o rd a n c e w ith fe d e ra l law . S c h n u c k p ro m p tlyu n d e rto o k a n in v e stig a tio n in to i t s over t i m e pol i ci es , and then tw o w eeks l at erfi r ed M r s . M ar x ci t i ng fal s i fi cat i ons on herappl i cat i on forempl oym ent . M r . M ar x r es ponded byfi l i ng a (c o n tin u e d ...) -4- sh o u lder inju ry . A fter rec eivin g the lett er, B raz ea l con tacted R icha rds to info rm hi m t hathe w oul d need t o s end a s ubpoena be for e B r aze al coul d pr oduce the r eques t ed document s . D ur i ng t he conve r s at i on, R i char ds t ol d B r aze al that E n d lich h a d b e e n in v o lv e d in a ro llo v e r a c c id e n t. B r aze al l at erdet erm i ned thatthe i nform at i on on E ndl i ch’ s appl i cat i on for empl oym entw as fal s e bec aus e Endl i ch had fai l ed t o di s cl os e the r ol l over a c c id e n t. H e f

u rth e r d e ter m in e d th a t E n d lich h a d m a d e fa lse re p re se n tatio n s to t he TW C C beca us e he ha d pas s ed hi s phy s i cal per form ance t es tand had be en w or ki ng forY el l ow w i t h no appar entdi ffi cul ty . Y el l ow cont ends thatB r aze al c o m m u n ica ted th e se c o n c e rn s to M a tt O g les b y , Y e llo w ’s la b o r m a n a g e r, w h o in tur n cont act ed D enni s D eck, E ndl i ch’ s l i nehaul m anage r , t o i nform hi m that E n d li ch h ad an “u n fa v o rab le ba ck g rou n d . ” D ec k then term inated E n d li ch ’s empl oym entbeca us e of Endl i ch’ s j ob per form ance pr obl ems and the i nform at i on h e h a d r e c e i v e d f

r o m O g l e s b y. 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 cl as s act i on A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entand Fai rL aborSt andar ds A ct s ui t . D ur i ng t he cour s e of de pos i t i ons t aken t o defe nd thi s l i t i gat i on, Schnuck l earned of pl ai nt i ff’ s m i s r epr es ent at i ons conce rni ng hi s m ar i t al s t atus , and s ubj ect ed hi m t o exami nat i on conce rni ng hi s pr evi ous fabr i cat i ons . T he di s tr i ct cour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton both cl ai m s . W e affi r m ed the di s m i s s al of t h e AD EA cl a i m, b u tr e v e r s e d t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f th e FS LA retali ati o n claim co n clud ing , inter ali a, th at S ch n u ck co u ld n o t r eb u t M arx ’s sh o w in g o f

p re tex t b yin v o k in g th e “ u n re late d w ro n g d o in g ” o f h is m i s r epr es ent at i ons conce r ni ng hi s m ar i t al s t atus . I d. at329. T he t i m i ng i s thus cruci al l ydi ffe r entfr om t hi s cas e i n w hi ch Endl i ch mi s r epr es ent ed hi s acc i dent h isto ryo n h is e m p lo ym e n t ap p lica tio n , an d Y e llo w lea rn e d o f th is m i s r epr es ent at i on befor e t erm i nat i on. -5- E n d lich su e d Y e llo w u n d e r th e A D A a n d w ro n g f u l d isc h a rg e u n d e r sta te l aw cl ai m i ng t hathe w as t erm i nat ed bec aus e Y el l ow r egar ded hi m as di s abl ed and t hatY el l ow as ked i m perm i s s i bl e ques t i ons abouthi s m edi cal hi s t ory . Y el l ow m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton the A D A cl ai m ar gui ng thatE ndl i ch w as t erm i nat ed form aki ng fal s e s t at ement s on hi s empl oym entappl i cat i on and for u n sa tisfa c to ryjo b p e rfo rm a n c e . T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof Y el l ow on E ndl i ch’ s A D A cl ai m s , butdeni ed s um m aryj udgm enton the s t at e l aw cl ai m . T he s t at e l aw cl ai m w as tr i ed t o a j uryand a ve r di ctw as ent er ed in Y ell o w ’s fa v o r. E n d li ch n o w ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof Y el l ow on hi s A D A cl ai m s . H e does notappea l fr om the ju ry v e rd ic t. W e re v iew d e n o v o th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t, appl y i ng t he s ame st andar d as t he di s tr i ctcourt . Si m m s v. O kl a. ex r el . D ep’ tof M e n ta l H e a lth & S u b s ta n c e A b u s e S e rv s ., 1 6 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).-6-

S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te “ if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis en ti tl ed to a ju d g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). T h e A D A p ro v id e s th a t n o c o v e re d e m p lo y e r “ sh a ll d isc rim in a te a g a in st a qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual w i t h a di s abi l i tybeca us e of the di s abi l i tyof s uch i ndi vi dual i n r e g a r d t o . . . t h e h i r i n g , a d v a n c e me n t , o rd i s c h a r g e o f e mp l o y e e s . ” 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 21 12 (a) . T o est abli sh a pri m a facie cas e un der the A D A , a plai nti ff m ust s how : ( 1) he has a di s abi l i t y ; ( 2) he i s a qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual w ho, w i th orw i t hout r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on can pe r form t he es s ent i al funct i ons of the j ob he d e s ir e s ; a n d (3 ) h is e m p lo y e r d is c ri m in a te d a g a in s t h im b e c a u s e o f h is d is a b ility. M c K e n z ie v . D o v a la, 2 4 2 F .3 d 9 6 7 , 9 6 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). D isa b ili tym e a n s: “( A ) a phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m entt hats ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one orm or e of the m aj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es of s uch i ndi vi dual ; ( B ) a r ecor d of s uch an i m pai r m ent ; or (C ) be ing reg ard ed as h av ing su ch an im p airm en t. ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 2 1 0 2 (2). T her e ar e tw o appar entw ay s i n w hi ch i ndi vi dual s m ayfal l w i thi n [ § 1 2 1 0 2 (2 )(C )]: (1 ) a c o v e re d e n titym ista k e n lyb e liev e s th a t a per s on has a phy s i cal i m pai r m entt hats ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one or m or e maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es , or( 2) a cove r ed ent i tym i s t akenl ybel i eves t hatan ac tual , nonl i m i t i ng i m pai r m ents ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one or m o re m ajo r life a c tiv iti e s. In b o th c a se s, it is n e c e ss a ryth a t a cov ered enti t yentert ai n m i spercept i on s abou tt he indi vidual – itm ust bel i eve e i t hert hatone has a s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t i ng i m pai r m entt hat one does nothave ort hatone has a s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t i ng i m pai r m ent w hen, i n fac t , t he i m pai r m enti s nots o l i m i t i ng.-7-

D oebel e v. Spr i nt/U ni t ed M gm t . C o. , 342 F. 3d 1117, 1132- 33 ( 10th C i r . 2003) (q u o tin g S u tto n v . U n ite d A irL in e s , In c ., 5 2 7 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 9 (1 9 9 9 )) . In h is c o m p lain t, E n d lich a ss e rte d th a t Y e llo w d isc rim in a ted a g a in st h im beca us e of hi s per cei ved di s abi l i tybyt erm i nat i ng hi s empl oym enti n vi ol at i on of 42 U . S. C . § 12112( a) . T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Y e llo w o n th is c laim b e c a u se E n d lich fa iled to sh o w th a t Y e llo w p e rc e iv e d h im to be di s abl ed w i t hi n t he meani ng of the A D A . Speci fi cal l y , the di s tr i ctcourtfound t hat“[Endl i ch] has pr es ent ed no evi dence that[Y el l ow ] bel i eved he had a s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t i ng i m pai r m entor‘ r egar ded’ hi m as havi ng a di s abi l i ty . ” T o r eac h t hi s concl us i on, t he di s tr i ctcourtas s um ed thatE ndl i ch w as as s er t i ng th a t Y e llo w re g a rd e d h im a s h a v in g a p h y sic a l im p a irm e n t th a t su b sta n tially lim ite d h im in th e m ajo r l ife a c tiv ity o f w o rk in g , a s o -c a lle d “ re g a rd e d a s ” c la im . See, e. g. , D oebel e, 342 F. 3d at1132. O n appea l , E ndl i ch ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n concl udi ng thathe neede d t o pr es entevi dence demonstr at i ng thatY el l ow r egar ded hi m as s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed i n a maj orl i fe a ct i vi ty . E ndl i ch ar gues al t ernat i vel ythat even i f thi s evi dence w as nece s s ary , the di s tr i ctcour terr oneous l yr ej ect ed e v id e n c e th a t E n d lic h w a s lim ite d in m ajo r l ife a c tiv itie s o th e r t h a n w o rk in g . O n this ba sis, h e c lai m s su ffici en t evid en ce w as in tr o d u ce d to su rviv e su m m ary ju d g m e n t.-8-

I n i t s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , Y el l ow as s er t ed thati tt erm i nat ed E n d li ch fo r be ing d isho n est i n h is em p loym en t app li ca ti o n an d fo r un sati sfa ctory j ob per form ance . Y el l ow al s o pr es ent ed evi dence thati tdi d notr egar d E ndl i ch as havi ng anys ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t i ng phy s i cal i m pai r m ent s . Forexampl e, Y el l ow pr ovi ded t es t i m onyfr om D eck, E ndl i ch’ s l i nehaul m anage r , i n w hi ch he s t at ed th a t h e h a d n o re a so n to b e liev e th a t E n d lich w a s n o t p h y sic a llyq u a lifie d to oper at e a mot orvehi cl e and thatE ndl i ch had pa s s ed the phy s i cal exami nat i on by t he companydoct or , as w el l as t he dr i vi ng t es t . Y el l ow al s o pr ovi ded t es t i m ony fr om E ndl i ch hi m s el f i n w hi ch he s t at ed thathe di d notbel i eve thatany one w ho w as i nv olved i n tes t i ng him and i nter act i ng w i th h i m du ri ng the h i ri ng process p e rc e iv e d h im to b e d is a b le d . E ndl i ch ar gues t hatunderD oebel e v. Spr i nt/U ni t ed M gm t . C o. a “r egar ded as ” pl ai nt i ff ne ed onl ys how t hatthe empl oy erent er t ai ns “my ths , fea r s , and s t er eotypes ” aboutan empl oy ee w i thouti dent i fy i ng how s he i s per cei ved t o be s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed i n a maj orl i fe a ct i vi ty . D oebel e, how ever , s t ands forno s uch pr opos i t i on. R ever s i ng t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton t he “r egar ded as ” cl ai m , w e hel d “M s . D oebel e pr es ent ed a facti s s ue on w hether [herempl oy er ’ s ] adver s e empl oym entact i ons w er e mot i vat ed bythe fa ctthather s upervi s or s r egar ded heras s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed fr om a br oad cl as s of j obs byher m ent al i m pai r m ent s . H ercow or ker s and s upervi s or s knew s he had ment al pr obl ems eve n befor e s he w as di agnos ed as bi pol arbyD r . U r danet a. ” I d. at-9-

11 35 . T hu s, E nd l i ch is m i st aken w hen he assert s that D oeb el e si m plyrequi res a s how i ng t hatt he empl oy erent ert ai n m yths , fea r s , and s t er eotypes aboutan e m p lo y e e , o r th a t th e re q u ire m e n ts fo r a p lain tiff b rin g in g a re g a rd e d a s c laim have c hanged. I n or dert o s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent , E ndl i ch nee ded t o pr oduce e vi dence t hatcr eat ed a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hether1) Y el l ow bel i eved he w as s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed i n a maj orl i fe a ct i vi tyw hen he w as nots o l i m i t ed, or 2) t hathe had a l i m i t at i on t hatY el l ow cons i der ed t o be s ubs t ant i al l i m i t at i on i n a m aj orl i fe a ct i vi t yw hen i n fac ti tw as nots o l i m i t i ng. See D oebel e, 342 F. 3d at1132. I n hi s r es pons e t o s um m aryj udgm ent , E ndl i ch fa i l ed t o i dent i fyhow Y el l ow per cei ved hi m t o be s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed i n anym aj orl i fe a ct i vi ty , and su m m aryjud g m en t w as p rop er. E ndl i ch has notci t ed anyr ecor d evi dence t o s uppor thi s as s er t i on that Y el l ow r egar ded hi m as bei ng s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed i n the maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es of r eac hi ng, t hr ow i ng, l i ft i ng ordr i vi ng. N ei therdoes he offeranyr ecor d evi dence i n s upportof hi s pos i t i on t hatY el l ow r egar ded hi m as s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed i n t he m aj orl i fe a ct i vi t yof w or ki ng. T he onl yr ecor d ci t at i on he pr ovi des i s fort he fa ct t hatE ndl i ch w on hi s cont es t ed w or ker s ’ compensa t i on hear i ngs . T hat i nform at i on s i m pl ydoes notpr ovi de anys upportforhi s cl ai m t hatY el l ow r egar ded hi m as s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t ed i n the maj orl i fe a ct i vi tyof w or ki ng.-10-

B eca us e Endl i ch fa i l ed t o pr ovi de anyevi dence of how Y el l ow r egar ded him as bei ng subst anti al l yl i m i t ed in anym aj or l i fe acti vity , he can no test abli sh one of the nec es s aryel ement s forhi s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on undert he A D A . T he di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ecti n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Y el l ow . See C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr et t , 477 U . S. 317, 322 ( 1986) ( expl ai ni ng that s um m aryj udgm enti s m andat ed “a gai ns ta partyw ho fai l s t o m ake a s how i ng s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he exi s t ence of an e l ementes s ent i al t o thatparty ’ s cas e, an d o n w h ich th e p artyw il l bea r th e b u rde n o f p roo f a t tri al”). E ndl i ch al s o as s ert s t hathi s t erm i nat i on had al s o r es ul t ed fr om an i m perm i s s i bl e i nqui r yabouthi s m edi cal hi s t oryi n vi ol at i on of the A D A . E ndl i ch a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is c laim b ec au se Y ell o w interpre ted c ertain o f it s p re-em p loym en t qu esti o n s to req u ir e di s cl os ur e of w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m s , and del i ber at el ys oughtand obt ai ned i nfo rm at i on abo ut tho se cl ai m s fr om t he law y er oppo si ng E nd l i ch’s w orkers ’ co m p en sati o n claim . H av ing rev iew ed the re co rd, w e a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on on E ndl i ch’ s i m perm i s s i bl e i nqui rycl ai m fors ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons s e t fo rt h in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e rs e n te re d A p ri l 1 9 a n d M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 . T he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge