Witter v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Citation: 138 F.3d 1366Docket: 97-8540

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; April 14, 1998; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Wayne O. Witter, an airline pilot, filed a lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, Dr. Michael Berry, and Preventative Aerospace Medical Consultants, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and Georgia tort law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, leading to Witter’s appeal.

Witter, who began his career with Delta in 1967, faced a mental health crisis in February 1992 that resulted in hospitalization and a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. After voluntarily grounding himself, he was denied FAA medical certification. In mid-1992, he initiated the process to regain this certification, which was eventually granted in February 1993, contingent upon submitting semi-annual psychiatric updates.

Delta required further medical evaluation before allowing Witter to return to flying. Dr. Berry's assessment in June 1993 concluded Witter had an Adjustment Disorder but not a psychiatric disorder at that time, permitting his return to duty in August 1993. However, following a problematic flight rotation in November 1993, where Witter had interpersonal issues with crewmates, Delta's leadership intervened, indicating Witter was the source of the conflict and recommending a Cockpit Resource Management session to address communication and teamwork skills.

A line check assesses a pilot's competency during aircraft operation. Following a Crew Resource Management (CRM) session, Delta's Systems Manager for Flight Administration, Wes Anderson, and Gause consulted Dr. Berry regarding pilot Witter's behavior during a November 1993 rotation, which Dr. Berry's previous report suggested warranted grounding. After reviewing Witter's November performance, Dr. Berry and Dr. Faillace recommended his temporary grounding. In early 1994, both doctors interviewed Witter, who claimed his crewmates were uncooperative and part of a plot against him. Witter’s crewmates reported his anger and identified him as a potential danger in the cockpit. Dr. Faillace noted that Witter exhibited narcissistic traits under stress, alongside features of Cyclothymia, while Dr. Berry corroborated these findings. In April 1994, Dr. Berry diagnosed Witter with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and possible Cyclothymia, leading Delta to permanently ground him. Dr. Berry informed the FAA, providing reports and recommending a review of Witter's medical certification. In June 1994, an FAA panel determined Witter should not receive medical certification due to his personality disorder, a conclusion supported by Dr. Pakull in December 1994. The FAA ultimately canceled Witter’s medical certification in February 1995, prompting Witter to appeal to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which restored his certification in December 1995.

Procedurally, Witter filed a lawsuit against Delta, Dr. Berry, and Medical Consultants in June 1995, alleging discrimination under the ADA, age discrimination under the ADEA, and various tort claims under Georgia law, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, defamation, and tortious interference. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. Witter's subsequent motion to vacate the judgment and recuse the district judge was denied as "wholly frivolous." Witter appealed both the summary judgment and the denial of his motion.

A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, meaning the appellate court applies the same legal standard as the district court. Summary judgment is warranted if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

To establish a prima facie case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Witter must demonstrate: (1) he has a 'disability'; (2) he is a 'qualified' individual; and (3) he faced discrimination due to his disability. 'Disability' is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities, a record of such impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.

Witter claims he is 'disabled' under the 'regarded as' definition, asserting that Delta perceived him as having a mental impairment that significantly limited his ability to work. To prove this, he must show that Delta regarded him as significantly restricted in his ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. The definition of 'substantially limits' requires that the impairment restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs compared to the average person with similar qualifications.

Witter conceded he did not provide evidence that Delta regarded him as significantly restricted in a broad range of jobs but claimed he demonstrated that Delta perceived him as unable to pilot airplanes. The court found that even if Delta perceived Witter as unable to pilot due to mental issues, this perception pertains to a narrow range of jobs and does not satisfy the definition of a 'class of jobs' as it requires consideration of jobs within the geographic area that utilize similar skills. Thus, Witter's evidence was insufficient to meet the necessary legal standard for establishing a disability under the ADA.

Non-piloting jobs in the Atlanta area that require similar skills to piloting include positions such as pilot ground trainer, flight simulator trainer, flight instructor, and various management roles in airline operations. Witter, a senior captain with 27 years of experience, claimed he was qualified for these roles. The court noted that Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport's status as a major hub means many such positions are available. To prove that Delta regarded him as unable to perform a 'class of jobs,' Witter needed to show he was seen as incapable of both piloting and these non-piloting roles. His failure to provide evidence led the court to conclude that there was no genuine issue regarding whether Delta perceived him as significantly restricted in the major life activity of working. This decision aligns with the Tenth Circuit's ruling in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., where the court found that being a global airline pilot was too narrow a job classification. The court affirmed the summary judgment for Delta regarding Witter's ADA claim and other claims, as well as the denial of Witter's motion to vacate the judgment and for recusal, concluding that Witter did not qualify as disabled under the ADA, thus not needing to evaluate additional elements of his claim.