Bartee v. Michelin North America, Inc.
| Citation | 374 F.3d 906 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-6071.,No. 03-6086.,03-6071.,03-6086. |
| Parties | Tony BARTEE, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, v. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Andrew W. Lester (Shannon F. Davies and R. Scott Thompson, with him on the briefs), Lester, Loving & Davies, P.C., Edmond, OK, appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Victor Fred Albert (Toni J. Ellington, with him on the briefs), McKinney & Stringer, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, appearing for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellee Michelin North America ("Michelin") terminated Plaintiff-Appellant Tony Bartee from his job as a foreman at its Ardmore, Oklahoma factory. After his termination, Mr. Bartee brought suit pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., alleging that Michelin failed to reasonably accommodate his disability and that it wrongfully terminated his employment. On appeal, Mr. Bartee challenges the District Court's back-pay award and its order barring a punitive-damages instruction. On cross-appeal, Michelin contests the District Court's failure to grant it judgment as a matter of law. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for a new determination of damages.
Mr. Bartee worked as a foreman at the Michelin factory in Ardmore. This position required Mr. Bartee to move about the sizeable plant to oversee his employees. In 1995, Mr. Bartee was diagnosed with avascular necrosis in both of his hips, which required two surgeries. Post-traumatic arthritis in his right ankle, which resulted from a previous car accident, also made walking and prolonged sitting increasingly painful.
Mr. Bartee asked Michelin to provide him a four-wheeled golf cart to lessen the strain of his daily movement in the plant. Michelin denied this request, instead providing him with a smaller three-wheeled cart. The size of this cart caused Mr. Bartee, a 6'4" man, significant discomfort and aggravated his hip condition. Faced with increasing pain, Mr. Bartee took short-term disability leave on June 4, 1998, which became long-term disability leave on December 3, 1998.
Michelin's employment policy requires it to terminate all employees who fail to return to work within twelve months of taking disability leave. Mr. Bartee contacted Michelin on May 3, 1999, after almost eleven months on leave, requesting that Michelin accommodate his condition or reassign him to a job that he could physically perform. In response, Michelin offered Mr. Bartee a job in the planning division. This job required the employee to work occasional twelve-hour shifts with substantial walking and standing and paid $20,000 less than the foreman position. Michelin also denied Mr. Bartee's request for use of a four-wheeled golf cart in this position, stating only that the three-wheeled cart should still be available. Given the physical requirements of the planning position and the lack of a suitable cart, Mr. Bartee's doctor advised him against taking the job. Mr. Bartee followed this advice and refused the position. Michelin offered him no other jobs and terminated him after his twelve months of disability leave expired.
Mr. Bartee's suit presented two theories of recovery pursuant to the ADA: (1) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and (2) wrongful termination. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Bartee on the reasonable-accommodation theory but against him on the wrongful-termination one. Neither party filed a timely motion for inconsistent verdicts. In its opposition to Mr. Bartee's request for front and back pay, however, Michelin contested the consistency of the verdicts. The District Court, employing plain error review, denied Michelin's request.
Although the District Court found the verdicts consistent, it refused to award Mr. Bartee back pay to the date of judgment in light of the jury's rejection of his wrongful termination claim. Instead, the District Court limited damages to the time between Mr. Bartee's letter requesting reasonable accommodation and the lawful discharge, ultimately awarding him $3,241.50. Mr. Bartee filed a timely notice of appeal, and Michelin cross-appealed.
Mr. Bartee raises three points for review. First, he argues that the District Court erred in awarding him only one month's back pay. Second, he asserts that the District Court should have instructed the jury on punitive damages. Third, if we do not reverse the District Court's back-pay ruling, he requests a new trial.
Michelin also brings three arguments on cross-appeal. First, Michelin urges that Mr. Bartee presented insufficient evidence that he is a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA. Second, Michelin contends that Mr. Bartee offered insufficient evidence of its failure to engage in a good-faith attempt to accommodate him. Third, in the alternative, Michelin challenges the District Court's exclusion of evidence of Mr. Bartee's post-June 1999 medical condition. We examine these issues in turn.
A district court's decision to award back or front pay under the ADA is an equitable one. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1) (); McCue v. Kansas, 165 F.3d 784, 791-92 (10th Cir.1999) (). As an equitable consideration, "a district court has broad discretion in fashioning relief to achieve the broad purpose of eliminating the effects of discriminatory practices and restoring the plaintiff to the position that she would have likely enjoyed had it not been for the discrimination." Dilley v. SuperValu, Inc., 296 F.3d 958, 967 (10th Cir.2002) (quotations and alterations omitted).
We review a district court's determination of front and back pay for abuse of discretion. Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116, 1143 (10th Cir.1999). Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 231 F.3d 694, 697 (10th Cir.2000) (citations and quotations omitted). "That the court's discretion is equitable in nature, hardly means that it is unfettered by meaningful standards or shielded from thorough appellate review." Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 416, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975) (citations omitted). Indeed, when affording remedies under the ADA, "[a] court must exercise this [equitable] power in light of the large objectives of the Act." Id.
Mr. Bartee argues that the District Court erred by limiting the damages for his reasonable-accommodation claim to his lost pay, minus his disability insurance payments, from the time that Michelin failed to accommodate him on May 3, 1999, to his termination on June 3, 1999. Finding that the District Court failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for its equitable award, we reverse and remand for a calculation of back- and front-pay damages consistent with this opinion.
First, like the District Court, we must interpret whether the verdicts are consistent. Here, neither party timely asserted inconsistent verdicts. "A failure to object to general jury verdicts on the ground of inconsistency before the jury is discharged constitutes waiver, unless the verdict is inconsistent on its face such that the entry of judgment upon the verdict is plain error."1 Resolution Trust Corp. v. Stone, 998 F.2d 1534, 1545 (10th Cir.1993). Plain error exists only when verdicts are inconsistent on their face.2 Diamond Shamrock Corp. v. Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd., 791 F.2d 1416, 1424 (10th Cir.1986).
In Diamond Shamrock, we formulated the plain-error inconsistency test as follows:
A verdict that resolves separate and distinct causes of action in favor of both parties is not inconsistent on its face.... In contrast, when several causes of action are identical and defended on the same ground, a verdict for the plaintiff on one cause of action and for the defendant on another is inconsistent. Id. at 1424-25.
In Oja v. Howmedica, Inc., 111 F.3d 782 (10th Cir.1997), however, we interpreted this standard to find a verdict for plaintiff in negligence and for defendant in strict liability inconsistent on its face. We found this inconsistency, despite the facial differences between these causes of action, because the only two elements contested at trial, product defectiveness and injury causation, "were common to all of Oja's claims." Id. at 791.
We note that some tension may exist between these two formulations; however, we need not resolve any possible tension today because the verdicts here are facially consistent under either standard.3 First, noting that the third elements differ for the claims of wrongful termination and failure to accommodate under the ADA,4 they appear to present separate and distinct causes of action. See Diamond Shamrock, 791 F.2d at 1424.5 Second, both parties vigorously contested the third elements of the reasonable accommodation and the wrongful termination claims.6 Hence, the verdicts are consistent under plain error review because the disputed elements were not common to both causes of action and the jury could have logically reached opposite conclusions on those elements. See Oja, 111 F.3d at 790-91.
Having found the verdicts consistent, we next evaluate the District Court's factual basis for limiting Mr. Bartee's back-pay award....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. Pittsburg State Univ.
...F.3d 747, 751 (10th Cir. 2007).7 See Sims v. Great Am. Life Ins. Co., 469 F.3d 870, 891 (10th Cir. 2006).8 See Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 914 (10th Cir. 2004).9 Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 172 F.3d 1232, 1241 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard......
-
White v. Town of Hurley
...EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028, 1049 (10th Cir. 2011)(internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir. 2004)(alteration in original), and citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). See Valdez v. McGill, 462 F. App'x at 819 ("An employ......
-
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. C.R. England Inc.
...implementing the ADA envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties.’ ” Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir.2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Templeton v. Neodata Servs., Inc., 162 F.3d 617, 619 (10th Cir.1998)); see also 29 C.F.R.......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie
...Elauf's religious practice by not mentioning the possible conflict and then not hiring her because of it. See Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir.2004) (noting, in ADA case, that employer's refusal to participate in an interactive process could result in liability);......
-
Disability discrimination
...would be qualified, with or without reasonable accommodations, for another job within company. Bartee v. Michelin North America, Inc. , 374 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir. 2004).The desire for reassignment must be an express request. Simply stating: “I can’t just go home, I need to work a job” doe......
-
Student Loan Discharge: Reevaluating Undue Hardship Under a Presumption of Consistent Usage
...regarding his leave request") (citing Midland Brake, 180 F.3d 1154, 1172 (10th Cir. 1999)); see also Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir. 2004) (employer's failure to participate in interactive process supported failure-to-accommodate claim).95. Yinger v. Postal Pre......
-
Mediating the Interactive Process
...122 Stat. 3553 (2008). [4] 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). [5] 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); 29 CFR § 1630.2(n)(1). [6] Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Templeton v. Neodata Servs., Inc., 162 F.3d 617, 619 (10th Cir. 1998)). [7] 29 CFR § 1630.2(o)(3); Smith v. Midl......