Opinion ID: 708160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Intentional Discrimination in Denial of Application

Text: 83 Finally, Grenier argues on appeal that there remain genuine issues of material fact as to his argument that Cyro intentionally discriminated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12112(a), as opposed to Sec. 12112(d). Grenier argues that, even if Cyro did not violate the specific restrictions on pre-offer inquiries, there is a genuine dispute of material fact whether Cyro illegally discriminated against Grenier based upon his disability when it denied his application for employment. 84 By failing to make this argument in his opposition to summary judgment, Grenier has failed to preserve this claim. It is by now axiomatic that an issue not presented to the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Johnston v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 595 F.2d 890, 894 (1st Cir.1979). This rule may be relaxed only in horrendous cases where a gross miscarriage of justice would occur. Id. (quoting Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, 539 F.2d 929, 932 (3d Cir.1976)). For a new argument to be considered, it must be so compelling as virtually to insure appellant's success. Id. (quoting Dobb v. Baker, 505 F.2d 1041, 1044 (1st Cir.1974)). 85 Even an issue raised in the complaint but ignored at summary judgment may be deemed waived. If a party fails to assert a legal reason why summary judgment should not be granted, that ground is waived and cannot be considered or raised on appeal. Vaughner v. Pulito, 804 F.2d 873, 877 n. 2 (5th Cir.1986); see also Liberles v. County of Cook, 709 F.2d 1122, 1126 (7th Cir.1983). This is because an appellate court, in reviewing a summary judgment order, can only consider those matters presented to the district court. Frank C. Bailey Enterprises, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 582 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir.1978). 86 Although this alternative argument can be found in the complaint, and Grenier asserts it would have been raised at trial, this does not suffice to preserve the issue. Cyro moved for summary judgment on all counts based solely on the validity of the pre-offer inquiry under Sec. 12112(d). Grenier argued only that issue in his brief. Although he made an oblique reference in his memorandum opposing summary judgment to Cyro's failure to challenge or admit his ultimate contention that Andre was discriminated against on the basis of his disability by the rejection of his application, he concedes he never addressed the alternative claim of intentional discrimination. The only related evidence Grenier discussed in his statement of material facts at summary judgment was that Lysaght stated on January 5, 1993 that Cyro was not seeking applicants, when it had in fact given notice of the job opening the day before. See Ennis v. National Ass'n of Business & Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55, 58 (4th Cir.1995) (discussing prima facie elements of claim under Sec. 12112(a)). After the judge entered final judgment once he had determined that Cyro was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of preemployment medical inquiries, no motion for reconsideration was filed. There is nothing in the record which persuades us to exercise our discretion to bend the raise-or-waive rule.