T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and 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. 

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

### A u gu s t11,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT R A Y L E V E L L E ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 1216 v . (D . C . N o . 0 2 -F -22 2 0 (P A C )) PE N SK E L O G I ST I C S, a s ubs i di aryof P e n s k e T ru c k L e a s in g C o rp o ra tio n , (D . C o lo .)

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *

B efor e M UR P HY , BA LD OCK , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

I . I nt roduct i on R ayL eV el l e s ued hi s form erempl oy er , Pens ke Logi s t i cs ( “Pens ke”) , i n t he U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the D i stri ctof C olor ado . A m on g o ther cl ai m s, L eV el l e al l eged Pens ke vi ol at ed the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) w h e n it t e rm in a ted h is e m p lo ym e n t af ter lea rn in g h e w a s w o rk in g su bjec t to d o ctor-rec o m m en d ed li fti n g restri cti o n s. T h e A D A claim p roc ee d ed to a ju ry- 2-

tr i al . L eV el l e pr evai l ed, and the j ur yaw ar ded hi m compensa t or ydamages , backpay , and puni t i ve damages . T he di s tr i ctcourtaw ar ded LeV el l e att orney s ’ fee s and cos t s . Pens ke appe al s fr om both the j udgm entand the court ’ s aw ar d of a tto rn e y s ’ fe e s . T h is c o u rt e x e rc is e s ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e affi rm in p a rt , v a ca te i n part , and r e m and forfur therpr ocee di ngs not in c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . I I . Backg r ound “W hen r evi ew i ng a j uryver di ct , w e r evi ew t he r ecor d i n favorof the pr evai l i ng par ty , and gi ve thatpar tyt he bene fi tof al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n fr om the evi dence . ” Mi l l e rv . Eby Rea l t y G r ou p LLC , 396 F. 3d 1105, 1108 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . V i ew ed i n thi s l i ght , t he r ecor d r evea l s t he fo llo w in g . F ro m 1 9 9 6 to M a rc h 1 9 9 9 , an d a g a in f ro m N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 9 to F e b ru a ry2 0 0 1 , L e V e lle w o rk e d fo r P e n sk e d e liv e rin g a n d in sta lli n g h o u se h o ld appl i ance s s uch as r efr i ger at or s , w as her s , dry er s , di s hw as her s , r anges , and cook top s. L eV ell e started o u t atP en sk e a s a d ri v er’s h elpe r. H elpe rs w ere r es pons i bl e forthe “gruntw or k” of pr epar i ng appl i ance s fori ns t al l at i on and m o v in g a p p lia n c e s f

ro m a d e liv e ry tru c k in to c u s to m e rs ’ h o m e s u s in g a d o lly. L at er , L eV el l e bec ame a dr i ver . D r i ver s as s es s ed del i veryl ogi s t i cs , as s i s t ed the hel peri n m ovi ng appl i ance s , di s connec t ed ol d appl i ance s , connec t ed new a p p lia n c e s , d e a lt w ith p a p e rw o rk , a n d in te ra c te d w ith c u s to m e rs .I n D ece m ber2000, L eV el l e underw enta s epar at e medi cal exami nat i on, 1 per form ed byD r . D avi d R ei nhar d. D r . R ei nhar d agr eed w i th D r . K aw as aki t hat L eV el l e had r eac hed maxi m um m edi cal i m pr ovementbySept ember2000 and (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 3- I n M ar ch 2000, L eV el l e s l i pped w hi l e del i ver i ng an appl i ance and i nj ur ed hi s back. A ft ert he i nj ury , he fi l ed a r eportatw or k and s oughtm edi cal tr eatm ent at th e h ea lth -ca re p rov ider P en sk e u sed in ca ses o f e m p loy ee injuries. L eV ell e’s p h y sic ian s to ld h im h e c o u ld n o t re tu rn to w o rk . A s a c o n se q u e n c e , L e V e lle d id n o t w o rk f

ro m M a rc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 u n til O c to b e r 9 , 2 0 0 0 . D u rin g th is tim e , L e V e lle u n d e rw e n t p h y s ic a l th e ra p ya n d re c e iv e d w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n s a tio n b e n e fits . I n Sept ember2000, D r . R obertK aw as aki gave LeV el l e an i m pai r m ent a ss e ss m e n t an d f

u n c tio n a l ca p a c itye v a lu a tio n . D r. K a w a sa k i d e ter m in e d L e V e lle h a d r e a c h e d ma x i mu m me d i c a l i mp r o v e me n t , b u tn o t e d Le Ve l l e h a d “ s o me s i gni fi cantl i m i t at i ons r egar di ng hi s w or k capa bi l i t i es . ” D r . K aw as aki recom m end ed the foll ow i ng w ork res tri ct i on s: 1. Foral l l i ft i ng bel ow the s houl derl evel , I r ecomm end a l i ght dutycat egoryw i th 40 pounds m axi m um occa s i onal l y , 20 p o u n d s f

r e q u e n t l y, a n d 1 0 p o u n d s c o n s t a n t l y. 2. Forl i ft i ng overhead I r ecomm end 20 pounds m axi m um o c c a s i o n a l l y, 1 0 p o u n d s f r e q u e n t l y, a n d 5 p o u n d s c o n s t a n t l y. 3. Forpus h and pul l , I r ecomm end 80 pounds m axi m um o c c a s i o n a l l y, 4 0 p o u n d s f r e q u e n t l y, a n d 2 0 p o u n d s c o n s t a n t l y. 4. T he pat i entw i l l need t o al t ernat e ac t i vi t i es betw een s i t t i ng, sta n d in g , an d w a lk in g a s n e e d e d fo r c o m fo rt. A pp. at693. D r . K aw as aki al s o det erm i ned LeV el l e had a n i m pai r m entof el even per centof the w hol e per s on. 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 agr eed w i th D r . K aw as aki ’ s r ecomm ended w or k r es tr i ct i ons . D r . R ei nhar d, how ever , concl uded LeV el l e’ s i m pai r m entr at i ng w as s event een pe r centof the w hol e per s on.

- 4- I n O ct ober2000, L eV el l e gave hi s m edi cal r eport s , i ncl udi ng the r ecomm ended w or k r es tr i ct i ons , t o B r et tC ar l , Pens ke’ s l ogi s t i cs cent erm anage r atthe t i m e. L eV el l e t es t i fi ed he a nd C ar l di s cus s ed the doct or - r ecomm ended w or k r es tr i ct i ons , and LeV el l e as s ur ed C ar l he w oul d be abl e t o per form hi s j ob a s a d riv e r. A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e c o n v e rsa tio n , C a rl to ld L e V e lle h e c o u ld r eturn t o w or k atPens ke. A tfi r s t , Pens ke t eamed L eV el l e w i th an expe r i ence d dr i verw ho eval uat ed LeV el l e’ s abi l i tyt o per form the j ob. A ft era w eek ors o, Pens ke gave L eV el l e hi s ow n truck and a hel per , and he r etur ned t o hi s form er pos i t i on as a dr i ver . L eV el l e w or ked as a dr i verforPens ke forthe nexts ever al m onths w i thoutanypr obl ems, w or ki ng appr oxi m at el ythe s ame hour s and maki ng app roxi m at el yt he sam e nu m ber of d el i veri es as other Pen ske dri vers. I n D ece m ber2000, Pens ke as ked LeV el l e t o i ns t al l a s etof appl i ance s that had al r eadybeen de l i ver ed t o a cus t om er ’ s hous e. A ft erarr i vi ng atthe j ob s i t e, L eV ell e a n d h is he lper d isco v ere d o n e o f th ese ap p li an ce s w as a K S S ref ri g era tor, a l ar ge and he avys ty l e of r efr i ger at or . I ns t al l at i on of a K SS re fr i ger at orr equi r ed a s peci al type of dol l yand atl eas tone extr a per s on. B eca us e LeV el l e di d not h a v e th e s p e c ia l d o lly o r t h e e x tr a h e lp , h e d id n o t in s ta ll th e re f ri g e ra to r.- 5-

L eV el l e’ s fai l ur e t o i ns t al l the K SS re fr i ger at orw as , i n par t , the s ubj ectof a meet i ng betw een LeV el l e and hi s s upervi s or s i n l at e J anuary2001. A tthe m eet i ng, L eV el l e expl ai ned t o hi s s upervi s or s he coul d noti ns t al l the appl i ance b e c a u s e h e d id n o t h a v e th e c o rr e c t d o lly o r t h e re q u ir e d n u m b e r o f p e o p le . L eV ell e a lso told h is sup erv isors h e w as stil l w o rkin g su bject t o d o ctorr ecomm ended w ei ghtr es tr i ct i ons , and expr es s ed t o them hi s conce rn that i ns t al l i ng a K SS re fr i ger at orw i thoutthe s peci al dol l yand extr a hel p m i ght a d v e rse lya ffe c t h is b a c k . L e V e lle’s su p e rv iso rs e n d e d th e m e e tin g , an d L e V e lle resu m ed h is no rm al du ti es a s a d ri v er. B ythe t i m e of the meet i ng, C ar ol yn J o W ar d had r epl ace d B r et tC ar l as Pens ke’ s l ogi s t i cs cent erm anage r . W ar d t es t i fi ed that , unt i l the meet i ng, s he w as n o t aw are L eV ell e w as w o rkin g su bject t o m ed ical restr ict ion s. S h e told the ju ry thataft erthe meet i ng w i th L eV el l e, s he l ooked thr ough herfi l es and as ked other Pens ke depa r t m ent s fori nform at i on on L eV el l e’ s r es tr i ct i ons . A ppr oxi m at el yone w eek a ft ert he meet i ng, W ar d obt ai ned w or ker s ’ compensa t i on and medi cal r ecor ds conce r ni ng L eV el l e’ s back i nj ur yand r es tr i ct i ons . W ar d r evi ew ed L eV el l e’ s r ecor ds and di s cus s ed hi s s i tuat i on w i th Pens ke’ s r i s k m anage m ent depart m ent . W ar d t ol d the j urys he w as conce rned thati f a dr i verw ho had al r eadys uffe r ed an on- the-j ob i nj ur yr etur ned t o w or k, he coul d r e- i nj ur e hi m s el f. O n February14, 2001, W ar d cal l ed LeV el l e i nt o heroffi ce a nd t ol d hi m he c o u ld n o t w o rk a s a d riv e r in lig h t o f th e m e d ica l re stric tio n s p lac e d o n h im b yh is- 6-

do ct ors. W ard ass ured L eV el l e she w ou l d p ut hi m back on w orkers ’ c o m p e n sa tio n , ev e n th o u g h L e V e lle to ld W a rd h e w a s n o lo n g e r e lig ib le to r ece i ve w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s . L eV el l e t es t i fi ed he a s ked W ar d w hether h e c o u ld w o rk a t Pe n sk e in s o m e o ther c ap ac ity . A cc o rdin g to L eV ell e, W ard s a i d s h e wo u l d t a l k t o s o me o n e a n d l e th i m k n o w. A tt r i al , W ar d t es t i fi ed s he di d notcons i derempl oy i ng L eV el l e i n any capa ci tyotherthan as a dr i verand di d notcons i deranyal t ernat i ve t o t erm i nat i ng L eV el l e’s em ploym ent w i th P enske. W ard al so t old the juryshe did no task any one i n heroffi ce ori n the adj oi ni ng Pens ke di vi s i on w hetherther e w as any l i ght - dutyw or k avai l abl e forL eV el l e. She expl ai ned s he knew the oper at i on, and th e r e w a s n o n e e d t o a s k a n yo n e e l s e a b o u ta v a i l a b l e j o b s . D u r i n g h e rt e s t i m o n y, W a r d c o n c e d e d t h e r e wa s a v a c a n ttr a n s p o r t a t i o n c l e r k p o s i t i o n a tth e t i me L eV el l e w as t erm i nat ed, butnot ed s he di d nothave appr oval t o fi l l the pos i t i on at thatt i m e. A ft erW ar d t ol d L eV el l e he c oul d notw or k as a dr i ver , L eV el l e di s cover ed an adj oi ni ng Pens ke di vi s i on w as i n need of a “r et ai l ” dr i ver . L eV el l e t es t i fi ed r et ai l dr i ver s del i ver ed ca bi net s fr om one l oadi ng dock t o anotherand w er e not s ubj ectt o t he s ame phy s i cal demands a s dr i ver s w ho i ns t al l ed appl i ance s . T he m anage rof the adj oi ni ng Pens ke di vi s i on offe r ed LeV el l e the r et ai l dr i verj ob, s ubj ectt o appr oval fr om Pens ke’ s hum an r es our ces depart m ent . A ccor di ng t o- 7-

L e V e lle, th e m a n a g e r la ter to ld h im P e n sk e ’s h u m a n re so u rc e s d e p a rtm e n t w o u ld n o t a llo w h im to h a v e th e re ta il d ri v e r j o b . O n February28, W ar d gave LeV el l e a l et t eri nform i ng hi m he w as bei ng pl ace d back on w or ker s ’ compensa t i on. L eV el l e i ns i s t ed he w as notel i gi bl e for w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n an d co n v ince d W ard to loo k into the m att er f u rth er. W ard c a lled L e V e lle la ter th a t d a ya n d to ld h im h e w a s c o rre c t, sh e c o u ld n o t p lac e h im back on w or ker s ’ compensa t i on. W ar d t ol d L eV el l e s he had a notherl et t erfor h im , a n d a s k e d h im to re tu rn th e fir s t le tte r s h e h a d g iv e n h im . L eV el l e compl i ed w i th W ar d’ s r eques t , and W ar d gave hi m the s econd l ett er . T he new l ett ert erm i nat ed LeV el l e’ s empl oym entatPens ke, effect i ve M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 1 . W a rd tes tifie d sh e ter m in a ted L e V e lle b e c a u se sh e b e liev e d h is d o c t o r - r e c o m m e n d e d r e s tr i c t i o n s p r e c l u d e d h i m f r o m d o i n g th e typ e o f h e a v ydutyw or k r equi r ed of Pens ke dr i ver s . She al s o s t at ed s he bel i eved he rdeci s i on nott o al l ow L eV el l e t o w or k as a dr i verw as i n the i nt er es tof LeV el l e’ s s afe ty , as w el l as the safetyof o ther Pen ske em ploy ees. T he l ett ert erm i nat i ng L eV el l e s t at ed, “D ue t o no w or k bei ng avai l abl e at th is tim e , y o u a re ter m in a ted e ffe c tiv e im m e d iate ly .” A p p . at 6 8 7 . L e V e lle to ld the j uryhe i nqui r ed aboutthe w or di ng of the l et t erw i th T erryC ool ey , w ho w or ked i n Pens ke’ s hum an r es our ces depart m ent . L eV el l e expl ai ned t o C ool eyhe fe lt th e lette r w a s m isle a d in g w h e n P e n sk e h a d ter m in a ted L e V e lle d u e to h is m e d ica l re stric tio n s, n o t b e c a u se th e re w a s n o w o rk a v a ilab le. C o o ley t o ld- 8-

L eV el l e the l ett erw oul d w or k bet t erforhi m as i tw as w r i t t en. I f the l et t ers t at ed L eV ell e w as term inated b ec au se o f h is r estri cti o n s, C o o leysaid , itw o u ld interfe re w ith L e V e lle’s a b ili tyto g e t an o th e r jo b b ylettin g o th e r e m p lo y e e s k n o w o f h is res tri ct i on s. A ft erhi s t erm i nat i on, L eV el l e fi l ed s ui tagai ns tPens ke. L eV el l e al l eged P e n s k e v io la te d th e A D A b yte rm in a tin g h im b e c a u s e it r e g a rd e d h im a s d is a b le d . L e V e lle a ls o b ro u g h t c la im s fo r r a c ia l d is c ri m in a tio n a n d w ro n g f u l te rm in a tio n . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o Pens ke on the r aci al d iscri m ination an d w ron g fu l t erm ination claim s. L eV ell e’s A D A claim , h o w ev er, p ro c e e d e d to a ju rytrial. Att r i a l , L e Ve l l e a r g u e d h e wa s q u a l i fi e d fo rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e ADA b e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e s h o w e d P e n s k e re g a rd e d h im a s h a v in g a d is a b ility. See 42 U . S. C . § 12102( 2) ( C ) . T he j uryagr eed; i tfound LeV el l e w as a qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual and Pens ke r egar ded LeV el l e as di s abl ed. L eV el l e al s o cont ended Pens ke vi ol at ed the A D A beca us e the evi dence s how ed i t s t erm i nat i on of hi m w as m ot i vat ed byi t s per cept i on t hathe w as di s abl ed. A gai n, the j uryagr eed, fi ndi ng P e n sk e in ten tio n a llyd isc rim in a ted a g a in st L e V e lle b e c a u se its p e rc e p tio n o f h im a s d i s a b l e d wa s a mo t i v a t i n g fa c t o ri n i t s d e c i s i o n t o d i s c h a r g e h i m. T he j uryaw ar ded LeV el l e compens at orydamages i n the amountof $10, 000. 00, back- payi n the amountof $28, 500. 00, and puni t i ve damages i n the am ou nt of $5 0, 00 0. 00 . L eV el l e fi l ed a M oti on for A t t orney ’s F ees and C ost s,- 9-

s eeki ng fee s i n the amountof $111, 949. 50, an enha ncementt ot al i ng $32, 628. 84, a n d $ 2 5 3 3 .7 4 in c o sts . P u rsu a n t to R u les 5 0 a n d 5 9 o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il Pr ocedur e, Pens ke moved t he courtt o gr antj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw or , i n t he alt ern ati v e, gra n t a ne w tr ial o r am en d the v erd ict . Italso o p p o sed in p art L e V e lle’s m o tio n fo r fe e s a n d c o sts . T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied P e n sk e ’s R u le 5 0 /R u le5 9 m o tio n , an d a w a rd e d L e V e lle $ 1 1 1 ,9 4 9 .5 0 in fe e s a n d $ 2 5 3 3 .7 4 in co sts. P en sk e a p p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f it s p o st- tr ial m o ti o n . It a ls o a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s a w a rd o f a tto rn e y s ’ fe e s a n d c o s ts . II I. A n a ly sis A . L e Ve lle’s “R eg a rd e dA s” D isa b ledC la im Pens ke cont ends the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng i t s m ot i on forj udgm ent a s a m a tter o r la w o r fo r a n e w trial o n th e m e rits o f L e V e lle’s A D A c laim . T h is cou rtrevi ew s de novo a dis tri ctcou rt ’s den i al of a m oti on for j ud gm ent as a m a tte r o f

la w . Kel l

y v. Metal l i cs W. , Inc. , 4 1 0 F .3 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law is “ o n lyp ro p e r w h e n th e e v id e n c e a n d a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n ther efr om ar e s o cl eart hatr eas onabl e mi nds coul d not d iffe r o n th e c o n c lu s io n .” Id . ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I n otherw or ds , a courtm ay gr anta mot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw “onl yi f the evi dence poi nt s but one w ayand i s s us cept i bl e t o no r eas onabl e i nfer ence s w hi ch mays uppor tt he oppos i ng par ty ’ s pos i t i on. ” Mi l l erv. A ut o. C l ub of N. M. , Inc. , 420 F. 3d 1098, 1131 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I n r evi ew i ng a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni alT he Supr eme C our thas obs erved an e m pl oy ee mayfal l w i thi n the 2 “r egar ded as ” pr ong of the A D A ’ s defi ni t i on i n tw o w ay s : hi s empl oy ercan bel i eve he has a s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t i ng i m pai r m entt hathe does notactual l yhave, orhi s empl oy ercan be l i eve hi s actual i m pai r m enti s s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t i ng w hen h is im p a ir m e n t is n o t, in fa c t, s u b s ta n tia lly lim itin g . Su t t on v. United A i r Lines, Inc. , 5 2 7 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 9 (1 9 9 9 ).

- 10- o f a m o tio n fo r a ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law , “[ w ]e re v iew a ll th e e v id e n c e in the r ecor d, cons trui ng i tand anyi nfer ence s ther efr om i n favorof the non- m ovi ng party , and r efr ai ni ng fr om m aki ng cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons and w ei ghi ng evi dence . ” Id . W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on fora new tr i al for abus e of di s cr et i on, vi ew i ng al l t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the p re v a ilin g p a rt y . Esc u e v . N. O k la . C o ll. , 4 5 0 F .3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

“ [ E ]v e n if

w e d o n o t n e c e ss a rilya g re e w ith th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict, it m u st b e u p h e ld unl es s i ti s cl ear l y , deci dedl yoroverw hel m i ngl yagai ns tthe w ei ghtof the evi dence . ” Id . at 11 5 7 (qu o tat ion o m itted).

“ T h e A D A p ro h ib its d isc rim in a tio n b yc o v e re d e n tit ies , inc lu d in g p riv a te empl oy er s , agai ns tqual i fi ed i ndi vi dual s w i th a di s abi l i ty . ” Su tto n v . Un itedA ir Li nes , Inc. , 5 2 7 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 7 7 (1 9 9 9 ). U n d e r th e A D A , a p e rso n w ith a d isa b ili ty i s defi ned, among ot herthi ngs , as an i ndi vi dual w ho i s “r egar ded as havi ng . . . an i m pai r m ent ” w hi ch “s ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one orm or e of the maj orl i fe a ct i vi t i es of s uch i ndi vi dual . ” 42 U . S. C . § 12102( 2) . “[T] o es t abl i s h a di s abi l i tyundert he 2

‘ r egar ded as ’ pr ong of the A D A w i th r es pectt o the maj orl i fe a ct i vi tyof w or ki ng, a n in d iv id u a l m u st s h o w [ h is] e m p lo y e r re g a rd e d h im . . . as b e in g su b sta n tially- 11-

l i m i t ed i n per form i ng ei thera cl as s of j obs ora br oad r ange of j obs i n var i ous cl as s es . ” St eele v. Thi okolC or p. , 241 F. 3d 1248, 1256 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he empl oy ee a l s o m us ts how hi s empl oy er ’ s m i s per cept i ons w e re b a s e d o n m yth s , fe a rs , o r s te re o typ e s a s s o c ia te d w ith d is a b iliti e s . D o e b e le v. Spr i nt/Uni t ed M

gm t . C o. , 3 4 2 F .3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 3 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Pens ke cont ends the j ury ’ s ver di cton L eV el l e’ s A D A cl ai m cannots t and b e c a u s e Le Ve l l e p r e s e n t e d n o e v i d e n c e i tr e g a r d e d h i m a s u n a b l e t o p e r fo r m a c las s o f jo b s o r a b ro a d ra n g e o f jo b s in v a rio u s c las se s. P e n sk e a lso a ss e rts L eV el l e fa i l ed t o pr es entevi dence t o s how i t s act i ons w er e bas ed on s pecul at i on, m yth , o r ste re o typ e . U p o n re v iew o f th e re c o rd a s a w h o le, w e c a n n o t ag re e w ith P e n sk e ’s a rg u m e n t.

(1) R egar ded As Unabl e to P er f or m a B r oad R ange of Jobs L eV el l e pr es ent ed evi dence s us cept i bl e t o r eas onabl e i nfer ence s s uppor t i ng his po si t i on t hat Pensk e view ed h i m as unab l e t o p erform a broad vari et yof jobs. A ccordi ng t o W ard’ s t est i m on y , aft er s he d et erm i ned L eV el l e cou l d n ot w ork as a dr i ver , s he di d notcons i derhi m foranyotherpos i t i ons w i th Pens ke bec aus e of h is r estri cti o n s. W ard told the jurythere w as a v ac an t tran sp o rt ati o n clerk pos i t i on atPens ke atthe t i m e LeV el l e w as t erm i nat ed, and s he def i ned the vac ant j ob as a cl er i cal pos i t i on thatdi d noti nvol ve hea vyphy s i cal w or k. A l though W ar d not ed s he l acke d appr oval t o have the tr ans por t at i on cl erk pos i t i on fi l l ed at thatt i m e, s he conc eded s he di d notcons i derL eV el l e forthe j ob and admi t t ed s he- 12-

r ece i ved appr oval t o fi l l the pos i t i on s hor t l yaft erL eV el l e w as t erm i nat ed. T he for egoi ng evi dence i s s us cept i bl e t o the r eas onabl e i nfer ence Pens ke di d not cons i derL eV el l e fort he tr ans por t at i on cl erk pos i t i on beca us e of hi s m edi cal res tri ct i on s. A ft erl earni ng Pens ke w oul d notal l ow hi m t o cont i nue w or ki ng as a dr i ver del i ver i ng and i ns t al l i ng appl i ance s , L eV el l e i nqui r ed of the managerof another P e n sk e d iv isio n a b o u t g e tti n g a jo b d e liv e rin g c a b in e ts o n a ro u te th a t w a s la rg e ly “r et ai l . ” LeV el l e t es t i fi ed the r et ai l r out e w oul d have i nvol ved del i ver i ng c a b in e ts f

ro m o n e lo a d in g d o c k to a n o th e r, an d w o u ld n o t h a v e re q u ire d h im to i ns t al l the ca bi net s . A l though t he ca bi netdel i verypos i t i on w oul d have r equi r ed L e V e lle to m o v e b o x e s w e ig h in g u p to 3 0 0 p o u n d s w ith o u t a h e lp e r, L e V e lle to ld the j uryhe w as phy s i cal l ycapa bl e of the j ob. L eV el l e expl ai ned thatbys l i di ng a dol l yunderan appl i ance , t i l t i ng i tt o a bal ance d pos i t i on, and r ol l i ng the appl i ance on the dol l y , he coul d s i ngl ehande dl ym ove hea vyappl i ance s w i thout li fti n g them . L eV ell e told the ju ryh e b eli ev ed h e d id n o t exc ee d h is do ctorr ecomm ended r es tr i ct i ons w hen he us ed the dol l yi n thi s fas hi on. Pens ke’ s hum an r es our ces depart m ent , how ever , di d notal l ow L eV el l e t o be hi r ed forthe ca bi net del i verypos i t i on. A j urycoul d r eas onabl yi nferfr om L eV el l e’ s t es t i m onythat the ca bi netdel i verypos i t i on w as notas phy s i cal l ydemandi ng as the dr i ver p o sitio n , tha t L e V e lle c o u ld h a v e p e rfo rm e d th e jo b w ith o u t v io latin g h is m e d ica l- 13-

r es tr i ct i ons , and thatPens ke nonethel es s r efus ed t o cons i derL eV el l e forthe p o s itio n . U pon t erm i nat i ng L eV el l e, Pens ke gave hi m a l et t ers t at i ng he w as l ai d off beca us e no w or k w as avai l abl e, notbeca us e he w as s ubj ectt o m edi cal re stric tio n s. C o o ley, th e P e n sk e h u m a n re so u rc e s d e p a rtm e n t em p lo y e e , told L eV el l e he w oul d be bett eroff w i th the “no w or k avai l abl e” l et t erand expl ai ned a let ter reve ali n g the e x ist en ce o f L eV ell e’s restri cti o n s to p o tential fu ture e m p lo y e rs w o u ld in ter fe re w ith L e V e lle’s a b ili tyto g e t an o th e r jo b . A ju ryc o u ld rea so n ab lyinfer f

rom this t esti m o n ythat C o o leyb eli ev ed d iscl o su re o f L eV ell e’s res tri ct i on s w ou l d int erfer e w i th L eV el l e’s abil i tyt o g etanyotherj ob , no tj ust a n o th e r j o b in v o lv in g h e a v yp h y s ic a l la b o r. I n s hor t , evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al perm i t s the r eas onabl e i nfer ence Pens ke re g a rd e d L e V e lle a s b e in g u n a b le to p e rfo rm a w id e ra n g e o f jo b s . T h e re fo re , a j urycou l d reasonab l ycon cl ud e P enske v i ew ed L eV el l e un able t o p erform a cl ass of jobs or a broad rang e of jobs i n v ari ou s cl asses .

( 2) A ct i on B as ed on M

yths , Fears , orSt er eot ypes T h e e v iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al also p erm it s the co n clus ion that P en sk e’s act i ons w er e bas ed upon my ths , fea r s , ors t er eotypes aboutL eV el l e’ s per cei ved d is a b ility, n o t u p o n h is a c tu a l a b ility to w o rk . P e n s k e a rg u e s it a c te d re a s o n a b ly, bas i ng i t s act i ons s ol el yon t he l i ft i ng, pul l i ng, and pus hi ng r es tr i ct i ons re c o m m e n d e d b yL e V e lle’s p h y sic ian s. A s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , h o w e v e r, L e V e lle- 14-

pr es ent ed evi dence s uffi ci entt o perm i tthe i nfer ence Pens ke r efus ed t o cons i der L eV el l e forj obs even w hen LeV el l e’ s doct or - r ecomm ended r es tr i ct i ons w oul d not h av e p rec lud ed h im fro m p erfo rm ing tho se jo b s. B ase d o n this ev iden ce , a jury coul d r eas onabl yi nferPens ke’ s act i ons w er e bas ed upon my ths , fea r s , or s t er eotypes aboutL eV el l e’ s per cei ved di s abi l i tyr atherthan an obj ect i ve evaluat i on of L eV el l e’s actual abi l i t i es.

( 3) Su m m ary A f ter c o n sid e rin g th e re c o rd a s a w h o le a n d d ra w in g a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s i n favorof LeV el l e, w e conc l ude a j urycoul d r eas onabl yi nferPens ke c o n sid e re d L e V e lle u n a b le to p e rfo rm a c las s o f jo b s o r a b ro a d ra n g e o f jo b s in var i ous cl as s es , and Pens ke bas ed i t s act i ons on m yths , fea r s , ors t er eotypes i ns t ead of

on L eV el l e’ s actual abi l i t i es . T he evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al w as ther efor e s uffi ci entt o perm i tthe conc l us i on thatPens ke r egar ded LeV el l e as d isa b led fo r p u rp o se s o f th e A D A . A c c o rd in g ly , P e n sk e is n o t en tit led to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . F o r th e sa m e re aso n s, w e c o n clud e the d istri ct co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it d e n ied P e n sk e ’s m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. B . A w ar d of

P uni t i ve D am ages Pens ke cont ends the di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng i t s m ot i on forj udgm ent a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w o rfo ra n e w t r i a l o n th e i s s u e o f p u n i t i v e d a ma g e s . I tc l a i ms th e re is n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s a w a rd o f p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. T h is c o u rt- 15-

revi ew s de novo w hethert her e exi s t s s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tan aw ar d of p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . D i l l ey v . Super Val u, Inc. , 2 9 6 F .3 d 9 5 8 , 9 6 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A courtm ayaw ar d puni t i ve damages t o an A D A pl ai nt i ff w hen the pl ai nt i ff demonstr at es the defendant“enga ged i n a di s cr i m i nat orypr act i ce or d isc rim in a to ryp ra c tice s w ith m a lice o r w ith re c k les s in d iffe re n c e to th e fe d e ra lly p ro tec ted rig h ts o f

a n a g g rie v e d in d iv id u a l.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 a (b )(1 ); see also EE O Cv. Wal - Mar tSt or es , Inc. , 1 8 7 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). A pl ai nt i ff s eeki ng t o m eetthi s s t andar d need nots how “egr egi ous oroutr ageous di s cr i m i nat i on i ndepende ntof the empl oy er ’ s s t at e of mi nd. ” Ko ls ta dv . A m. D en tal A ss’n , 527 U . S. 526, 535 ( 1999) . H e must , how ever , demonstr at e the empl oy er“atl eas tdi s cr i m i nat e[d] i n the fa ce of a per cei ved r i s k thati t s act i ons w [oul d] vi ol at e fe der al l aw . ” Id . at536. T o demonstr at e he i s ent i t l ed t o puni t i ve d a m a g e s, a p lain tiff

m u st m e e t a h ig h e r sta n d a rd th a n th a t re q u ire d to sh o w h e is e n title d to c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s . Id . at534. Forthatr eas on, “[t ] her e w i l l be ci r cumst ance s w her e i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on does notgi ve r i s e t o puni t i ve damages l i abi l i ty . ” Id . a t 5 3 6 . L e V e lle a rg u e s a ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e P e n sk e k n e w it w a s v io latin g h is r i ght s undert he A D A beca us e C ool ey , w ho w or ked i n Pens ke’ s hum an r es our ces d e p a rtm e n t, pa rticip a ted in L e V e lle’s ter m in a tio n . L e V e lle a rg u e s a ju ryc o u ld i nferthatas a human r es our ces empl oy ee, C ool eyknew fede r al di s abi l i tyl aw and th u s w a s a w a re P e n s k e ’s d e c is io n to te rm in a te L e V e lle m ig h t v io la te th e A D A .- 16-

A s L eV el l e poi nt s out , t hi s courthas det erm i ned a j ur ycoul d concl ude an e m p lo y e r d isc rim in a ted in th e fa c e o f a p e rc e iv e d risk th a t it s a c tio n w o u ld vi ol at e fe der al l aw w hen the di s cr i m i nat i ng empl oy er ’ s agentt es t i fi ed he w as fa m ilia r w ith th e A D A ’s re q u ir e m e n ts w h e n h e s u s p e n d e d a d is a b le d e m p lo y e e . Wal - Mar tSt or es , 187 F. 3d at1246. I n the i ns t antcas e, how ever , L eV el l e di d not cal l C ool eyas a w i tnes s , and the r ecor d i s devoi d of evi dence i ndi cat i ng w hether C o o ley w a s fa m ili a r w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e A D A . C o o ley’s p o sitio n in P e n sk e ’s h u m a n re so u rc e s d e p a rtm e n t, stan d in g a lo n e , is n o t en o u g h to su p p o rt a re a so n a b le in fe re n c e P e n sk e ter m in a ted L e V e lle in th e fa c e o f a p e rc e iv e d risk its a c tio n s w o u ld v io la te fe d e ra l la w . L e V e lle c laim s a n u m b e r o f o th e r fa c ts s u g g e st P e n sk e ter m in a ted h im in the fa ce of

a per cei ved r i s k i tw as vi ol at i ng the A D A . Forexampl e, he cont ends P en sk e m u st ha v e b ee n aw are it s ac ti o n s ri sk ed v iolati n g the A D A b ec au se W ard t erm i nat ed hi m s oon aft ers he found outabouthi s r es tr i ct i ons , w i thoutm aki ng anyeffor tt o s eek upda t ed medi cal i nform at i on orper form an i ndi vi dual i zed as s es s m entof hi s abi l i t i es . T hi s evi dence does nots ugges tPens ke knew term inating L eV ell e riske d v iolati n g the A D A an d there fo re d o es n o t sup p o rt L eV el l e’ s cl ai m t o puni t i ve damages . L eV el l e al s o ar gues Pens ke musthave know n t erm i nat i ng hi m r i s ked vi ol at i ng the l aw beca us e W ar d and C ool eygave hi m a l ett ercont ai ni ng a fa l s e expl anat i on forhi s t erm i nat i on. A s not ed above , L eV el l e pr es ent ed no evi dence t o s ugges tC ool eyw as fami l i arw i th the- 17-

r equi r ement s of the A D A . Si m i l ar l y , W ar d gave unr ebutt ed t es t i m onythats he had nev er r ecei ved t rai ning i n A D A com pli ance. W i tho ut anyevidence to sugg est C ool eyorW ar d w as fami l i arw i th the r equi r ement s of the A D A , the t erm i nat i on lette r th e yg a v e to L e V e lle, sta n d in g a lo n e , d o e s n o t p e rm it th e re a so n a b le in fe re n c e th a t P e n sk e k n e w its a c tio n s ris k e d v io latin g th e law . F in a lly , L e V e lle a ss e rts P e n sk e ’s c o n d u c t in ter m in a tin g h im e v id e n c e d m a licio u s d isre g a rd o f h is fede r al r i ght s . T he r ecor d does nots ubs t ant i at e LeV el l e’ s cl ai m , and w e fi nd L eV el l e’ s ar gum entunper s uas i ve. A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d on appea l , w e conc l ude LeV el l e fa i l ed t o pr es ent evi dence t hatw oul d al l ow a j uryt o fi nd Pens ke di s cr i m i nat ed i n the fa ce of a p erc eive d ri sk it s co n d u ct w o u ld v iolate th e A D A . A cc o rdin g ly , the d istri ct co u rt err ed w hen i tdeni ed Pens ke’ s m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on the i s s ue of p un i t i ve d am ages. C . A w ar d of

A t t or neys ’Fees Pens ke cont ends the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s aw ar d of att orney s ’ fee s t o L eV el l e w as ex ce ssive an d m u st be su b stan ti all yred u ce d . T h is co u rtrev iew s a d istri ct co u rt ’s a w a rd o f

a tto rn e y s’ fe e s fo r a b u se o f d isc re tio n , alth o u g h th e “ leg a l an a ly sis underpi nni ng t he fe e aw ar d i s r evi ew ed de novo. ” P r as euth v. R ubber m ai d, Inc. , 406 F. 3d 1245, 1257 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . W e conduc tourr evi ew w i th know l edge that “[t ]he di stri ctcou rthas an inherentadv antage i n p assi ng on a fee reque st gi ven i t s fami l i ar i tyw i th the pr ocee di ngs bel ow . ” Id . “U n less d istri ct co u rt s are- 18-

s peci fi c i n thei rr eas ons foraw ar di ng at t or ney s ’ fee s , ” how ever , “w e have no adequa t e bas i s upon w hi ch t o r evi ew s uch aw ar ds . ” Wol f e ex . r elJos eph A. v. N. M. D ep’tof Hum an Servs. , 28 F. 3d 1 0 5 6 , 1 0 6 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). “A partyw ho prevai l s on an A D A cl ai m i s perm i t t ed recov eryof att orney s’ fee s , cos t s and expe ns es . ” P ra se u th , 4 0 6 F . 3 d a t1 2 5 7 . A s th e p r e v a i l i n g p a r ty, L eV el l e r eques t ed att orney s ’ fee s i n the amountof $111, 949. 50 and an enhanc ementi n the amountof $32, 628. 84. Pens ke conc eded LeV el l e w as ent i t l ed t o att orney s ’ fee s , butar gued the courts houl d aw ar d hi m l es s than the amounthe r eques t ed. I tar gued LeV el l e w as notent i t l ed t o the ful l amount he cl ai m ed b e c a u s e , in tera lia , L eV el l e di d notpr evai l on hi s r ace di s cr i m i nat i on and w ro n g f u l d isc h a rg e c laim s, h e d id n o t n e e d tw o a tto rn e y s a t trial, ce rta in o f h is exp end i tures w ere excessi ve, and he w as not ent i t l ed to anyenh ancem ent of fees. T he di s tr i ctcourtaw ar ded LeV el l e att orney s ’ fee s i n the amountof $ 1 1 1 , 9 4 9 . 5 0 , w h ich w as th e e x ac t l o d estar am o u n t prese n ted b yL eV ell e. In m aki ng i t s aw ar d, how ever , t he di s tr i ctcour ti ndi cat ed i tr educe d the l odes t arand add ed an enh ancem ent i n arr i ving at$1 11 , 94 9. 50 . T he co urtst at ed it s aw ard w as bas ed i n parton an offs etbetw een a r educt i on i n fee s forl i m i t ed i neff i ci enci es , s om e vague bi l l i ng entr i es and the l ack of s ucce s s on tw o of the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s bal ance d agai ns ta l i m i t ed enha ncement of al l ow abl e fe es thati s j us t i fi ed her e. I m pl i ci ti n the aw ar d i s the re a so n a b len e ss o f

th e h o u rlyra tes so u g h t b yp lain tiff ’s c o u n se l. LeVel l e v. P ens ke Logis t i cs , No . 0 2 - F - 2 2 2 0 ( D. Co l o . Ap r i l 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( Or d e r s On P o s t- T ri a l M o tio n s ).- 19-

O n appea l , Pens ke cl ai m s the di s tr i ctcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by aw ar di ng exce s s i ve att orney s ’ fee s . W i thouta more part i cul ar i zed e xpl anat i on of the r educt i ons and enha ncement s found bythe di s tr i ctcour t , how ever , w e ca nnot d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n . See, e. g. , B ar t l et tv. Mar t i n Mar i et ta O

per at i ons Suppor t, Inc. Li f e Ins . P lan , 3 8 F .3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 9 (1 0 th C i r . 1994) ( concl udi ng the di s tr i ctcourtdi d nots uffi ci ent l yexpl ai n i t s aw ar d of att orney ’ s fee s ) . T hi s courtt her efor e r emands the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deron att orney s ’ fee s form or e det ai l ed fi ndi ngs . L eV el l e’ s m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e a sur- repl yi s grant ed . I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, th is c o u rt affi rm s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of P e n s k e ’s p o s t- tr ia l m o tio n in p a rt , va cates the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s aw ar d of puni t i ve damages , and r e m ands forfur therpr ocee di ngs noti ncons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge