Fahey v. Twin City Fan Companies

Citations: 994 F. Supp. 2d 1064; 29 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 401; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3954; 15 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) 15; 2014 WL 131196Docket: No. Civ. 11-4171-KES

Court: District Court, D. South Dakota; January 12, 2014; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Gordon Fahey filed a lawsuit against Twin City Fan Companies, LTD, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and South Dakota law. Following a court trial on October 30-31, 2013, the court made several findings of fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). Twin City Fan, a manufacturing company in Mitchell, South Dakota, employs approximately 200 workers and had open positions in October 2010, including a parts expediter role. Fahey applied for a 'Production Worker' position and met with the Human Resources Manager, LaRue Steffes, who arranged for him to tour the plant with production supervisor Travis Peterson. Following the tour, they identified Fahey as a suitable candidate for the upcoming parts expediter position, contingent on internal applicants. When no internal applications were received, Steffes offered Fahey the position on October 22, 2010, pending a drug test and physical examination.

Dr. Darla Edinger conducted the examination on October 25, 2010, revealing that Fahey was blind in his right eye, which necessitated specific accommodations for safety. The report indicated that Fahey's work station would need modifications due to his vision impairment, alongside noting preexisting conditions unrelated to work. After reviewing this report, Steffes concluded that Fahey's condition would prevent him from safely performing the parts expediter role, particularly because it involved operating a forklift. Steffes consulted with plant manager Lyndon Johnson and supervisor Jeff Tally, and they collectively agreed to rescind Fahey's job offer without further inquiry into his limitations.

On October 26, 2010, Steffes informed Fahey that his job offer was rescinded due to concerns about safety related to Fahey's vision impairment, which Steffes argued could not be accommodated by Twin City Fan. Fahey contested this assessment, insisting that he could safely perform the duties of a parts expediter and requested reconsideration. However, both Steffes and Johnson reiterated that Fahey posed a safety risk. Ultimately, Steffes communicated to Fahey that no accommodations were possible, solidifying the rescission of the job offer. Despite Twin City Fan's standard practice of retaining employment applications for one year for potential openings due to high turnover rates (47-50% annually), Fahey's application was not retained. Meanwhile, Fahey secured full-time employment at LifeQuest and part-time work at Riverfront Broadcasting.

Fahey asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for disparate treatment and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. To prevail on his disparate treatment claim, he must demonstrate four elements: 1) he is a disabled person as defined by the ADA; 2) he is qualified for the job; 3) he experienced an adverse employment action; and 4) his disability was a motivating factor in that action. The court finds that Fahey qualifies as disabled under the ADA due to his blindness in one eye, which significantly limits his ability to see, a major life activity. 

Fahey must also establish that he was qualified for the parts expediter position. While he applied for a general production worker role, Twin City Fan interprets this as seeking any production-related position. After evaluating Fahey's application and conducting an interview, Steffes determined Fahey was suitable for the parts expediter role, contingent upon passing a physical exam and drug test. The court will assess whether Fahey meets the qualifications for this specific position based on the job requirements outlined by Twin City Fan.

An applicant for the parts expediter position at Twin City Fan must have a high school diploma or GED, six to twelve months of related experience or training, and specific skills, including the ability to read safety and procedural documents, perform basic arithmetic, and safely use tools. Certification in operating a forklift and bridge crane is provided by the company post-hire. Fahey, who holds a high school diploma and a bachelor's degree, has relevant experience from military service and previous jobs. Twin City Fan offered him the position contingent on passing a physical exam and drug test, indicating they considered him qualified.

The court concluded that Fahey met the necessary qualifications for the role. The primary concern was whether he could perform essential job functions, particularly operating a forklift and navigating the plant safely, especially given his vision impairment from losing sight in his right eye in 2007. Fahey demonstrated his ability to maneuver safely, citing daily experiences and specific strategies he employs to compensate for his limited peripheral vision. He also established his capability to operate a forklift, having previous experience and a valid driver's license.

Twin City Fan asserted a direct threat defense, claiming Fahey's monocular vision could pose a safety risk to himself and others. For this defense, the company must prove that Fahey poses a significant risk that cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodations. Twin City Fan is required to conduct an individualized assessment using current medical evidence, considering factors such as the duration and severity of the risk, the likelihood of harm, and its imminence. The company relied on deposition testimony from Dr. Edinger to support its argument regarding the direct threat posed by Fahey’s condition.

Dr. Edinger's deposition occurred after Twin City Fan rescinded Fahey’s job offer, meaning her testimony was not available during the employment decision process. Consequently, her retrospective opinions regarding Fahey's potential threats are not relevant to assessing whether Twin City Fan fulfilled its obligation to conduct an individualized inquiry based on reliable medical evidence. The City appropriately removed Burroughs from duty based on objective evidence and medical judgment, emphasizing that direct threat assessments require comprehensive information about an employee’s history and medical status, rather than subjective assessments.

Steffes, who made the decision to rescind Fahey's job offer, relied on Dr. Edinger’s post-offer physical summary report, which indicated that Fahey required accommodations and noted the necessity of wearing safety glasses. Following discussions about safety implications with colleagues, Steffes concluded that Fahey could not safely perform the parts expediter role due to forklift operation concerns. After Fahey contested this decision, Steffes indicated that Twin City Fan would reconsider but ultimately reaffirmed the rescission after further discussions with her colleagues.

The court determined that Twin City Fan failed to meet its obligations under the ADA by not conducting a proper individualized analysis before rescinding the job offer based on safety concerns related to Fahey’s disability. The only medical input considered was Dr. Edinger’s report, which acknowledged Fahey's blindness in one eye and suggested accommodations were necessary, without further inquiry into specific limitations related to his condition. Steffes admitted to lacking direct communication with any medical professionals regarding the implications of monocular vision on forklift operation and did not explore potential accommodations prior to the rescission. As a result, the decision appeared based on prejudices and stereotypes rather than a thorough evaluation of Fahey's abilities. Twin City Fan also failed to demonstrate that any potential direct threat could not be mitigated through reasonable accommodations.

Fahey proposed a side mirror for the forklift as a potential accommodation to address his limited peripheral vision, but Twin City Fan did not consider this option. Steffes, who decided against accommodating Fahey, did not specify any alternative accommodations evaluated. Twin City Fan failed to demonstrate that Fahey was a direct threat to himself or others, nor did they fulfill their obligation under the ADA to conduct an individualized assessment before making employment decisions. The court found that the 'direct threat' defense was not applicable, establishing that Fahey qualified for the essential functions of the parts expediter position under the ADA.

There was also uncertainty regarding Fahey's qualifications for the assembler position, which required no additional skills beyond those needed for the parts expediter role. Twin City Fan argued that Fahey's arthritis and degenerative joint disease disqualified him due to the physical demands of the assembler role. However, Dr. Edinger's evaluation indicated that Fahey was not incapable of performing any positions at Twin City Fan, and she did not rule out his ability to fulfill the assembler duties. Fahey testified that despite his arthritis and headaches, he could perform the assembler's tasks, leading the court to conclude that he was also capable of fulfilling the assembler position's essential functions.

Additionally, Fahey faced adverse employment actions when Twin City Fan rescinded his job offer for the parts expediter position upon learning of his blindness. The court acknowledged this rescission as an adverse action under the ADA. Regarding the assembler position, while Fahey claimed he could have been placed in that role, Twin City Fan asserted that no assembler position was available when he applied. The law stipulates that employers are not obligated to create new positions or displace current employees to accommodate a disabled individual, nor were they required to consider Fahey for the assembler position if he only applied for the parts expediter role.

Reassignment is not an option for applicants, but Fahey applied for any production worker role, leading Twin City Fan to determine that the parts expediter position was most suitable for him. Consequently, Fahey's placement in an assembler role did not constitute a 'reassignment' under the ADA. The focus shifts to whether Twin City Fan treated Fahey differently due to his disability, which is central to a disparate treatment claim. Twin City Fan typically retains employment applications for one year and notifies applicants about open positions, especially given the plant's high turnover rate of 47-50% annually.

At the time of trial, Twin City Fan had four open assembler positions during the day shift, but did not notify Fahey of these openings. Instead, it rescinded his job offer, citing his disability and assuming he would no longer be interested in working there. This decision reflected differential treatment compared to other applicants, constituting an adverse employment action under the ADA. Twin City Fan did not dispute that Fahey's disability was the reason for rescinding the offer and failed to provide a valid nondiscriminatory reason for this action, apart from an unproven direct threat claim.

Fahey demonstrated that he wanted to work at Twin City Fan, having applied for various positions and actively sought to have his rescinded offer reconsidered. This evidence supported his disparate treatment claim, which Twin City Fan could not adequately defend against. Additionally, Fahey raised a reasonable accommodation claim, asserting that discrimination occurs when an employer fails to provide reasonable accommodations for known disabilities unless it would impose an undue hardship. Fahey needed to prove that he was disabled under the ADA, that Twin City Fan was aware of his disability, that he could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodation, and that the company failed to provide such accommodations.

Fahey established he is a disabled person under the ADA, and Twin City Fan was aware of this disability. There was no accommodation provided to Fahey by Twin City Fan. The key issue is whether Fahey could perform the essential functions of the parts expediter position with reasonable accommodation, as this was the only available position when he applied. The court previously determined Fahey was qualified for the position even without accommodation and found that Twin City Fan failed to demonstrate he posed a direct threat to himself or others. 

Assuming Fahey was not qualified without accommodation, he needs to show that a reasonable accommodation would enable him to perform the job functions. Fahey only needs to make a facial showing of the possibility of such accommodation, shifting the burden to Twin City Fan to prove the accommodation would be unreasonable or ineffective. Twin City Fan's argument against Fahey's qualifications centers on his limited peripheral vision, particularly regarding the operation of a forklift. Fahey proposed using a mirror on the forklift to enhance his peripheral vision, akin to the requirement for a side mirror on a car. The court found this accommodation plausible, yet Twin City Fan failed to address it at any point during the rescission of the job offer or the trial. 

Critically, Twin City Fan did not engage in any interactive process to explore accommodations before rescinding the offer. The employer is obligated to make a reasonable effort to identify appropriate accommodations once aware of an employee's need. Steffes, who decided that Fahey could not be accommodated, did so without consulting relevant medical information or understanding Fahey's specific limitations in relation to the job. There was no evidence presented that Twin City Fan made a good faith effort to accommodate Fahey.

Steffes did not discuss Fahey's limitations before deciding that accommodations could not be made, relying instead on stereotypes and generalizations. The court emphasized that the ADA mandates an interactive process between employer and applicant to assess potential accommodations individually. This dialogue is crucial as applicants provide insight into their limitations while employers can suggest alternative duties or accommodations. When an employer excludes a disabled individual from this conversation, it undermines the purpose of the ADA and may push the individual to seek redress in court. Although not creating automatic liability, failing to engage in the interactive process becomes significant when a plaintiff proposes a legitimate accommodation that the employer did not consider. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Fahey regarding his reasonable accommodation claim, which also supported his state-law claim.

Regarding damages, Fahey sought $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The court aimed to fairly compensate him for losses directly linked to the rescinded job offer from Twin City Fan, evaluating lost wages and benefits against any earnings from other employment and his efforts to mitigate damages. An economist's assessment indicated Fahey's past economic losses were $36,396, based on potential earnings with Twin City Fan versus his earnings at LifeQuest. However, testimony indicated that consistent overtime for a parts expediter is not guaranteed, prompting the court to adjust the overtime earnings calculation from $8,220 to $5,754. Ultimately, the court determined Fahey's reasonable past economic damages to be $33,930 for lost wages and benefits.

The court evaluated Fahey's claims for front pay and emotional damages. Front pay, a remedy not favored over reinstatement, was deemed too speculative due to Fahey's inconsistent work history, lack of employment with Twin City Fan (he was merely an applicant), and the company's high turnover rate of 47-50% annually. Regarding emotional damages, Fahey claimed significant emotional distress from the rescinded job offer but failed to seek any counseling. The court awarded $25,000 for emotional damages based on his testimony. Additionally, Fahey was found entitled to $58,930 in compensatory damages and prejudgment interest on back pay. 

For punitive damages, the court referenced legal standards requiring proof of intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference. Although Twin City Fan’s beliefs about safety risks related to Fahey's disability were unfounded, the court concluded that these beliefs were not malicious or reckless, thus punitive damages were not warranted. Ultimately, the court found Fahey had proven his claims under the ADA and state law but determined punitive damages were inappropriate in this case.

Judgment is ordered in favor of plaintiff Gordon Fahey against defendant Twin City Fan Companies, LTD. Both parties must submit their calculations and methods for determining prejudgment interest by January 21, 2014. The parts expediter position requires essential duties including forklift operation, with specific vision abilities necessary for the role. Travis Peterson estimates that 25% of the duties involve forklift operation, for which Twin City Fan mandates certification, involving a training video, written exam, and practical operation assessment post-hire. Fahey holds a high school diploma and a bachelor's degree, has a military background, and has previous experience in various roles, including forklift operation. He developed glaucoma in 2007, resulting in vision loss in his right eye and limited peripheral vision, which he compensates for with head movements and increased caution. Fahey continues to engage in various activities and holds a valid driver’s license with restrictions. He alleges employment discrimination based on disability under SDCL 20-13-10, and the court intends to apply the same legal rationale as in a previous case, referencing federal standards. The court emphasizes that the determination of impairment must disregard any mitigating measures and aims to broadly interpret disability definitions under the ADA. Fahey applied for a production worker position at Twin City Fan, which requires applicants to demonstrate their qualification for essential job functions, including forklift certification.

Peterson's testimony emphasized that operating a forklift is a critical function of the parts expediter role, comprising approximately 25% of the job duties, necessitating the ability to maneuver heavy objects around the plant. The case involves assessing whether Twin City Fan's decision regarding Fahey’s employment was objectively reasonable and if it complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by conducting an individualized inquiry into whether Fahey posed a direct threat due to his vision impairment. The record indicates that Twin City Fan did not engage in an interactive process to explore possible accommodations for Fahey, nor did it involve him in discussions about these accommodations. Instead, the employer unilaterally concluded that no accommodation was feasible without specifying what had been considered.

To establish a claim of reasonable accommodation, Fahey must demonstrate he possesses the necessary qualifications and can perform essential job functions, with or without accommodation. Twin City Fan argued that Fahey's vision impairment disqualified him for safety reasons, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the employer to demonstrate that he remains unqualified even with accommodations. The direct threat defense, which Twin City Fan claimed, requires the employer to prove the assertion, but Twin City Fan failed to provide evidence linking Fahey's impairment to the job's essential functions. Specifically, Dr. Edinger mentioned that optimal peripheral vision for operating a forklift is 85 degrees, while 70 degrees is acceptable; however, she did not specify Fahey's peripheral vision. Consequently, Twin City Fan could not justify its decision to rescind Fahey's job offer based on his disability, and prior findings indicated that the company did not genuinely attempt to accommodate him. Therefore, Twin City Fan's defenses to damages, including the "good faith" argument, were deemed inapplicable. The court also established a method for calculating lost wages and benefits, determining the difference between Fahey’s potential earnings and his actual income.