Opinion ID: 728966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the verdict form erroneously limited recovery to

Text: 60 TERMINATION 61 According to questions five and six of the verdict form, in order for the jury to return a verdict for McNely on either his discrimination claim or his retaliation claim, the jury was required to find that McNely was terminated for a prohibited reason. However, the ADA protects against more than termination. It prohibits discrimination in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a) (West 1995); see also id. § 12203 (anti-retaliation provision) (prohibiting employers to discriminate). In other words, the ADA prohibits a broad variety of adverse employment actions, whenever those actions are taken for a prohibited reason. 62 McNely's complaint alleged a variety of adverse employment actions short of his ultimate termination. Specifically, paragraphs twenty-two and twenty-three of his complaint, which were incorporated into every count, made the following allegations: 63 22. After withdrawing Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation in the Camera Department, Defendant reassigned Plaintiff to janitor's duty requiring Plaintiff to clean toilets and bathrooms, among other janitorial duties. 64 23. Defendant subsequently reassigned Plaintiff to the shipping and loading department, and required Plaintiff to perform loading and other physically strenuous tasks difficult or impossible for a man of Plaintiff's condition to perform. 65 It is undisputed that, after the 40-minute press delay in August 1993, Star-Banner reassigned McNely to the building maintenance department. It is also undisputed that after McNely complained about being assigned to the maintenance department, Star-Banner reassigned him to do clerical work, and then reassigned him once again to the distribution department. At trial, evidence about those transfers was admitted, and McNely argued to the jury that those actions were taken for a discriminatory reason. In turn, Star-Banner argued that those transfers were an attempted accommodation of McNely's medical condition. The jury instructions informed the jury that McNely could recover for adverse employment action, defined as action that has a negative effect on terms, privileges, or other conditions of employment, such as hiring, job assignment, termination, granting leave, promotion and compensation. Nevertheless, over McNely's objection, the district court declined to modify the verdict form to permit recovery for adverse employment action short of termination. As a result, the verdict form was inconsistent with the ADA, with the complaint, with the evidence presented at trial, and with the jury instructions.