F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 27 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GREGORY P. BURGARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 96-1199
(D.C. No. 95-N-1961)
SUPER VALU HOLDINGS, INC., (D. Colo.)
also known as Wetterau, Incorporated,
doing business as Ohio Cubco, Inc., a
Missouri corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, HENRY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff commenced an action in district court alleging defendant violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213,
by terminating him from his union position and later rehiring him for a lower-
paying nonunion position. The district court granted defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the
district court improperly denied his motion to supplement his response to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment; (2) whether in ruling on the summary
judgment motion the district court viewed the facts in the light most favorable to
him; and (3) whether the district court erred in concluding he did not make a
prima facie case under the ADA. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
The relevant facts are as follows. Plaintiff injured his back while working
for defendant in a union warehouse position as a wrapper. All union warehouse
positions were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). At the time
of the injury, plaintiff had mid-level seniority in the union. After plaintiff took a
medical leave, Dr. Filner released him to work with lifting restrictions of twenty-
five pounds frequently and fifty pounds occasionally. Dr. Ladwig, defendant’s
company doctor, examined plaintiff and issued a work release concurring with the
restrictions of Dr. Filner. Plaintiff’s supervisors believed that he was unable to
perform the essential functions of all union warehouse jobs because they required
-2-
a worker to lift greater than fifty pounds. For that reason, defendant terminated
plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a discrimination claim with the Colorado
Civil Rights Commission. Defendant offered plaintiff a nonunion job as a meat
scanner, which he accepted and continues to hold.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that in deciding the summary judgment motion
the district court did not view all of the facts in the light most favorable to him
and that the district court wrongly concluded he did not make a prima facie case
under the ADA. We disagree.
We review the grant . . . of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same legal standard used by the district court pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment is appropriate if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. When applying this standard, we
examine the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in
the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. If
there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute, then we next
determine if the substantive law was correctly applied by the district
court.
Kaul v. Stephan, 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted).
The ADA prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified
individual with a disability because of the disability” in regard to discharge.
42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a
plaintiff must prove (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA;
(2) he is qualified with or without reasonable accommodation, which he must
-3-
describe, to perform the essential functions of the job; and (3) the employer
terminated him due to the disability. 1 See White v. York Int’l Corp., 45 F.3d 357,
360-61 (10th Cir. 1995).
“Disability” means “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of
such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). In general, a person is “substantially limited” if he or she
cannot perform a major life activity or is significantly restricted in the
performance of such activity. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). Working, as plaintiff
alleges, is a major life activity. See id. § 1630.2(i). An individual’s ability to
perform the major life activity of working is substantially limited if he or she is
significantly restricted in his or her ability to “perform either a class of jobs or a
broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having
comparable training, skills and abilities.” Id. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Inability to
perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation of the major life activity
of working. See id. Courts may consider the following factors in determining
whether an individual is substantially limited in the major life activity of working:
1
Contrary to plaintiff’s suggestion in his opening brief, the standards for a
prima facie case are established in the Tenth Circuit.
-4-
(A) The geographical area to which the individual has
reasonable access;
(B) The job from which the individual has been disqualified
because of an impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing
similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that
geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified
because of the impairment (class of jobs); and/or
(C) The job from which the individual has been disqualified
because of an impairment, and the number and types of other jobs not
utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that
geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified
because of the impairment (broad range of jobs in various classes).
Id. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii).
Neither party disputes that plaintiff’s lifting restrictions are an impairment.
The issue is whether the restrictions substantially limit his ability to work.
Plaintiff argues, based on his vocational expert’s opinion, that he is precluded
from performing the class of jobs requiring greater than medium work and he is
therefore disabled under the ADA. The district court rejected plaintiff’s
vocational expert’s opinion, that plaintiff is restricted from performing a class of
jobs exceeding the medium work category, as conclusory and unsupported by any
evidence of plaintiff’s vocational training, the geographical area to which he has
access, or the number and types of jobs demanding similar training from which he
would be disqualified. The district court set forth the broad range of jobs in
various classes that plaintiff previously had held, and at no time did plaintiff
indicate that any of those jobs conflicted with his lifting restrictions. Moreover,
the district court determined that plaintiff’s inability to perform a union
-5-
warehouse job is insufficient to establish he is unable to perform either a class or
broad range of jobs. The district court concluded that plaintiff’s lifting restriction
alone did not prove he had a substantial limitation of the major life activity of
working and he is not disabled.
We agree with the district court’s conclusions. “‘An impairment that
disqualifies a person from only a narrow range of jobs is not considered a
substantially limiting one.’” Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 386 (8th
Cir. 1995) (holding that impairment preventing plaintiff from performing narrow
range of meat packing jobs not considered substantially limiting) (quoting
Heilweil v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 32 F.3d 718, 723 (2d Cir. 1994)). Plaintiff’s
lifting restriction, along with the CBA seniority rules, prevent him from
performing only a narrow range of union warehouse jobs at defendant, not a class
of jobs or broad range of jobs in various classes. Thus, he does not have an
impairment substantially limiting the major life activity of working. See Dutcher
v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 727 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding inability to
perform one aspect of job while retaining ability to work in general is not
substantial limitation on major life activity of working); cf. Williams v. Channel
Master Satellite Sys., Inc., 101 F.3d 346, 349 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding as matter
of law that twenty-five pound lifting restriction did not constitute significant
restriction on ability to work), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3675 (U.S.
-6-
Mar. 24, 1997) (No. 96-1521); Aucutt v. Six Flags Over Mid-America, Inc.,
85 F.3d 1311, 1319 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding twenty-five pound lifting restriction
not significant restriction on working). But cf. 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app.
§ 1630.2(j) (giving example of individual with back injury who is prevented from
performing heavy lifting and is impaired in major life activity of working because
impairment eliminates ability to perform one class of jobs, even if individual can
perform jobs in another class); 2 Cochrum v. Old Ben Coal Co., 102 F.3d 908, 911
(7th Cir. 1996) (holding physical restrictions of no overhead work, heavy lifting,
or pulling and pushing might apply to broad range of jobs and are more than job
specific and reasonable jury could conclude impairment substantially limited
ability to work). Even if he was not actually disabled, plaintiff believes that he
was regarded as disabled because of defendant’s adverse employment decisions
and because his supervisors believed that he could not perform any union jobs due
to his lifting restriction. An individual is “regarded as” having an impairment
that substantially limits a major life activity if the individual is treated as if he
had such an impairment, whether he does or not. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l); see
also Bridges v. City of Bossier, 92 F.3d 329, 332 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied,
117 S. Ct. 770 (1997). The focus is on the effect the impairment has on the
2
Although the interpretative guidance is not controlling, we may resort to it
for guidance. See Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).
-7-
attitudes of others. See Gordon v. E.L. Hamm & Assocs., Inc., 100 F.3d 907, 913
(11th Cir. 1996); Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 108-09 (3d Cir. 1996);
Wooten, 58 F.3d at 385.
Here, as the district court concluded, there is no evidence that defendant
regarded plaintiff as unable to perform a class of jobs or a range of jobs in
various classes other than as precluded by the CBA. In this case, defendant’s
treatment of plaintiff as unable to perform the jobs covered by the CBA is not the
substantial equivalent as treatment of plaintiff as if he had an impairment that
substantially limits a major life activity. Defendant’s consideration of plaintiff’s
lifting restrictions did not cause him to be regarded as disabled under the ADA,
especially since defendant offered plaintiff a nonunion warehouse job he was
capable of performing. See Gordon, 100 F.3d at 913 (determining significant
impairment is one that is viewed by employer as generally foreclosing type of
employment involved, not just narrow range of job tasks); Kelly, 94 F.3d at 109
(deciding mere fact employer was aware of employee’s impairment insufficient to
demonstrate employer regarded employee as disabled or that perception caused
adverse employment action); cf. Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1393
(5th Cir. 1993) (holding under Rehabilitation Act, employer’s belief employee is
unable to perform task does not establish per se that employer regards employee
as having substantial limitation on ability to work). Thus, plaintiff failed to bring
-8-
forth any evidence indicating defendant treated him or perceived him as having a
substantial limiting impairment. See Aucutt, 85 F.3d at 1320.
Because plaintiff did not direct this court to any facts establishing a
genuine issue for trial, we conclude the district court properly determined he was
not disabled within the meaning of the ADA and properly granted summary
judgment in defendant’s favor. Because plaintiff did not meet the disability
element of the prima facie discrimination case, we need not address whether the
district court correctly determined plaintiff is not a qualified person. See White,
45 F.3d at 363.
Plaintiff argues the district court improperly denied his motion to file a
supplemental response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. He sought
to file a response after taking Dr. Ladwig’s deposition. Because, according to
plaintiff, the district court relied on Dr. Ladwig’s opinions and his opinions were
actually more favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff believes he should have been
permitted to file a supplemental response incorporating those opinions. The
district court denied the motion for the reasons that ample time had been allowed
for discovery and briefing of dispositive motions, plaintiff failed to state good
cause for extending any deadline previously set by the court, and supplementation
would only lead to confusion concerning the disputed facts in the case. We
review the district court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion. See
-9-
GWN Petroleum Corp. v. Ok-Tex Oil & Gas, Inc., 998 F.2d 853, 858 (10th Cir.
1993) (stating rulings regarding amendment of pleadings are reviewable for abuse
of discretion).
Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on December 28, 1995,
the deadline for filing dispositive motions. The district court originally had set
December 18, 1995, as the deadline for discovery. Later, however, it extended
the deadline for discovery to January 31, 1996, and extended the time for plaintiff
to respond to the motion for summary judgment until February 9, 1996, and, later,
until February 20, 1996. Dr. Ladwig failed to appear for his deposition scheduled
for January 31, 1996, due to no fault of plaintiff. Plaintiff rescheduled the
deposition for February 20, 1996, the day he was required to file his response to
the motion for summary judgment. On February 20, he filed his response, along
with a motion to supplement the response with respect to Dr. Ladwig’s opinions.
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that it provided ample time
for discovery and briefing of dispositive motions. Also, plaintiff failed to show
that the district court’s denial of the motion to supplement resulted in actual and
substantial prejudice. Cf. Searls v. Glasser, 64 F.3d 1061, 1068 (7th Cir. 1995)
(denial of discovery). Nothing indicates the deposition testimony raised any issues
of material fact. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
-10-
discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to supplement his response to the motion
for summary judgment.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-11-