Opinion ID: 212656
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Susan Lewis, a registered nurse, began working in July 2004 at Humboldt Manor Nursing Home (Humboldt Manor). At some time in September 2005, she alleged that she developed a medical condition that, among other things, affected her lower extremities. This condition, she alleged, made it difficult for her to walk and entirely prevented her from working for one month. When Lewis returned to work, she sometimes used a wheelchair. Humboldt Manor terminated Lewis on March 20, 2006. Its alleged reason for her termination was an outburst by Lewis at the nurses' station that occurred on March 15. Three employees of Humboldt Manor testified that during this outburst, Lewis yelled, criticized her supervisors, and used profanity. Lewis and another employee, Tom Collins, testified that Lewis was upset but did nothing inappropriate. Lewis believed that the true cause of her termination was her use of a wheelchair i.e., her disabilityand that Humboldt Manor had exaggerated the severity of her behavior in order to use it as a pretext for her termination. Lewis filed suit in federal district court for wrongful termination under the ADA. [1] In her proposed jury instructions, Lewis requested that the jury must determine whether her perceived disability was a motivating factor in the termination decision. The district court, instead, mirroring its jury instructions on Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1178 (6th Cir.1996), told the jury that Lewis could recover only if her disability was the sole reason for the decision to terminate. The jury found in favor of Lewis on two of the three elements of her ADA claim: it determined that Humboldt Manor regarded her as disabled and that she was a qualified individual under the ADA. However, the jury found against Lewis on the third element: it determined that her disability was not the sole reason for her termination. Accordingly, the district court entered judgment in favor of Humboldt Manor. Lewis now appeals on a single issue: whether the district court erred by instructing the jury on the solely causation standard.