Russell v. Plano Bank & Trust

• Citation: 130 F.3d 715
• Decision Date: 19 December 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-41007,96-41007
• Parties: , 7 A.D. Cases 1073, 11 NDLR P 206 Danny L. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PLANO BANK & TRUST, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 715

130 F.3d 715

39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 932, 7 A.D. Cases 1073,

11 NDLR P 206

Danny L. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PLANO BANK & TRUST, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-41007.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1997.

David K. Watsky, Gillespie, Rozen, Tanner & Watsky, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mark Christopher Clements, Clements & Allen, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before KING and JONES, Circuit Judges, and WERLEIN, ^* District Judge.

KING, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant Danny L. Russell appeals the district court's judgment, following a jury trial, in favor of defendant-appellee Plano Bank & Trust. Russell claims that the district court's jury instructions contained an incomplete definition of the term "qualified individual with a disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994), which he argues was likely to have misled the jury. He therefore contends that he is entitled to a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff-appellant Danny L. Russell was employed by defendant-appellee Plano Bank & Trust ("Plano Bank") from August 15, 1980, until his termination on October 31, 1993. Both parties agree that Russell was a valuable employee who received several promotions during his tenure at Plano Bank. In 1989, Russell received a promotion to the position of Vice-President and Special Asset Department Manager, and it is this position that he held at the time of his termination.

On August 4, 1992, Russell was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused him to suffer neck, shoulder, and back injuries, as well as a "concussion post-late effect, also known as a brain injury." As a result of the accident, in September 1992 Russell began to experience "complex partial seizures." These seizures caused Russell to experience symptoms which included disorientation, muscle twitching in his extremities, blank staring, sensitivity to sound and light, irritability, and rage. Several weeks after the accident, Russell experienced one of these seizures while at work.

As a result of the seizures, Russell sought medical attention, and he was placed on disability leave while he underwent evaluation and treatment. During the fall of 1992, Russell began a rehabilitation program aimed at preparing him to return to work on a part-time basis. On December 15, 1992, Russell, his wife, and Dr. Richard Fulbright, Russell's treating neuropsychologist, met with Jeff Chase, Plano Bank's Executive Vice-President and Russell's supervisor, to discuss his condition and the possibility of his return to work. The parties eventually agreed that Russell could return to his job when he was capable of working for at least four hours per day. Russell then enrolled in an intensive rehabilitation program that focused on teaching him job-related skills and allowed him to practice working on Plano Bank's own files.

The rehabilitation program discharged Russell on July 7, 1993, and he claims that as of that date he was ready and cleared by his physicians to return to work for at least four hours per day. ¹ On July 10, 1993, Russell, along with his wife and his rehabilitation nurse, met with Chase and another Plano Bank representative. Chase informed Russell that Plano Bank was planning to eliminate the Special Assets Department and that he was therefore unsure whether there was a place for Russell at the bank. On August 5, 1993, Chase confirmed that he had been unable to find a position for Russell, and he offered Russell a severance package conditioned on Russell's signing a release of liability. In August 1993, Plano Bank disbanded Russell's department. Russell refused to sign the release that accompanied the severance package, and on October 26, 1993, he received a termination letter from Plano Bank stating that he was terminated as of October 31, 1993.

On May 19, 1995, Russell filed suit against Plano Bank claiming that it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994), by failing to reasonably accommodate him and by ultimately terminating his employment. After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Russell was not a qualified individual with a disability. The district court therefore entered a judgment that Russell take nothing on his claims, and Russell timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Jury Instructions

Russell argues that the district court's jury instruction contained an erroneous definition of the term "qualified individual with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA which is likely to have misled the jury. He therefore argues that he is entitled to a new trial. At trial, Russell submitted a proposed jury instruction to the district court which read, in part, as follows:

The term "qualified individual with a disability", as used in these instructions, means an individual with a disability who can perform the essential functions of the employment position at issue, with or without reasonable accommodation.

The definition that the court ultimately gave to the jury read, in part, as follows:

The phrase "qualified individual with a disability", as used in these instructions, means an individual with a disability who can perform the essential functions of the employment position which the Plaintiff holds or for which the Plaintiff has applied.

The next page of the instructions contained an explanation of the term "essential functions" which included the following statement:

If a disabled employee is not able to perform the essential functions of his position, with or without reasonable accommodations, as that term is defined in these instructions, the employee can lawfully be terminated and the employer is not required to assign him to alternative employment.

Two pages later, the jury instructions defined "reasonably accommodate" as follows:

The term "reasonably accommodate" means any effective modification or adjustment to the workplace that makes it possible for a person with a disability to perform the essential functions of their employment position or to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of employment that are available to any person without a disability.

The Verdict of the Jury included a total of seven interrogatories. Interrogatory Number 1 read as follows: "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Danny L. Russell was a qualified individual with a disability?" Because the jury responded negatively to this question, they did not reach any of the other interrogatories.

Russell argues that he was prejudiced by the form of the jury instructions because the words "with or without reasonable accommodation" were omitted from the definition of qualified individual with a disability. He contends that in answering Interrogatory Number 1, the jury would tend to focus on the specific definition of qualified individual with a disability and was therefore likely to ignore the discussion of reasonable accommodation which appeared in a later part of the jury instructions. In support of his argument, Russell points to the ADA's own definition of qualified individual with a disability, which reads as follows:

The term "qualified individual with a disability" means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.

42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (1994). Russell contends that the reasonable accommodation requirement is the "heart and soul" of the ADA, and he therefore argues that the district court's failure to mention reasonable accommodation in its definition of qualified individual with a disability created ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.

In response, Plano Bank first argues that because Russell failed to preserve his objection to the jury instructions, this court's consideration of his appeal is limited to plain error review. Second, Plano Bank notes that although Russell cited to § 104A.04 of the treatise Federal Jury Practice and Instructions as support for his proffered instruction, the language in that book is exactly the same as the language used by the district court in its definition of qualified individual with a disability. Finally, Plano Bank contends that there was no reasonable accommodation that would have permitted Russell to fulfill the essential functions of his job because (1) the accommodations that Russell requested were not reasonable, and (2) even if the requested accommodations were implemented, Russell was still not qualified for the position he sought due to his mental limitations.

B. Standard of Review

Where a party argues on appeal that the district court erred in refusing to give a proffered jury instruction, that party must "show as a threshold matter that the proposed instruction correctly stated the law." Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d 1314, 1318 (5th Cir.1994). As Russell's proffered instruction tracked the language of the ADA, there is no question that it was a correct statement of the law.

Once that threshold is met, we generally apply a two-part test in considering a challenge to the district court's jury instructions. The party challenging the instructions must first "demonstrate that the charge as a whole creates 'substantial and ineradicable doubt whether the jury has been properly guided in its deliberations.' " Id. (quoting Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 276 (5th Cir.1993)). Second, even where a jury instruction was erroneous, "we will not reverse if we determine, based upon the entire record, that the challenged instruction could not have affected the outcome of the case." Id. Moreover, in determining whether the instruction was erroneous, we accord substantial deference to the...