Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light

Decision Date12 May 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-3052,98-3052
Citation188 F.3d 964
Parties(8th Cir. 1999) Diane M. Cossette, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Minnesota Power & Light, an employer and business corporation in the State of Minnesota; Joseph C. Burton, Defendants - Appellees. Submitted:
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Diane M. Cossette appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment on her claims of retaliation and illegal disclosure of confidential medical information under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as the court's dismissal of various related state law claims. We affirm the grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but we reverse the summary judgment entered on the claims of illegal disclosure of medical information, as well as the dismissal of the state law claims, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to Cossette, the party against whom summary judgment was granted. See Do v. Wal-Mart Stores, 162 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 1998). In 1990, Cossette worked part-time for both Minnesota Power & Light and part-time as a waitress at a restaurant. While working at the restaurant, she fell and injured her back, leading to a finding of 10.5 percent permanent partial disability and entitling her to partial workers' compensation benefits under Minnesota law. Although her back injury substantially impaired her ability to lift, bend and carry, Cossette was able to continue her employment with MP&L in the "Call Center."

Three years after the back injury, Cossette still worked in the Call Center. Despite satisfactory job performance, Cossette's supervisor suspected that she suffered from literacy deficits, dyslexia, and perhaps other intellectual deficiencies, and she ordered Cossette to undergo testing at a local university clinic. The testing revealed normal cognitive and academic abilities.

In the meantime, Cossette was seeking a transfer from the Call Center to MP&L's Office Services Department. MP&L hired a local clinic to determine Cossette's ability to meet the physical demands associated with the office services clerk position. In November 1992, the clinic determined that Cossette had a lifting restriction of twenty to thirty-five pounds. Joseph C. Burton, supervisor of the Office Services Department, learned of Cossette's back injury, lifting restriction, and perceived intellectual deficiencies. At the behest of MP&L's associate general counsel and human resources officer and without Cossette's consent, Burton disclosed this information to his subordinates (Cossette's prospective co-workers). Burton and others were concerned that Cossette's limitations would adversely affect departmental morale, particularly if his subordinates' schedules and tasks would have to be altered to accommodate Cossette.

Burton and MP&L ultimately approved the transfer to the Office Services Department, where Cossette began working part-time in April 1993. Cossette. continued to receive favorable performance appraisals, but her co-workers treated her patronizingly as a result of Burton's unauthorized disclosures.

About one year later, the U.S. Postal Service considered hiring Cossette as a part-time letter carrier in the Duluth area. Cossette had previously scored well on the written examination required of applicants for the position, but local hiring freezes prevented the Postal Service from considering Cossette's application until the spring of 1994. The position required the ability to lift loads of up to seventy pounds.

Burton learned about Cossette's application to the Postal Service. Without Cossette's consent, he informed the Postal Service about Cossette's back injury and lifting restriction, reasoning that it was his "duty to inform the Post Office that [she] had a back injury," and that "it seemed important that the Postal Service should know" about the lifting restriction. Burton also admitted that he hoped "for his own greedy purposes" that Cossette would not get the letter carrier job and leave MP&L. The Postal Service declined to hire Cossette for the position, and it so informed her by letter on April 22, 1994. Some three weeks later, a letter carrier informed Cossette that an unfavorable reference from MP&L had led to the rejection of her application. As a result of Burton's disclosure and the rejection of her application, Cossette became severely depressed and underwent a course of psychotherapy and medication.

Cossette filed charges of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against both MP&L and the Postal Service. Six weeks after she filed charges with the EEOC, Cossette received an unfavorable work performance appraisal from Burton and MP&L. Her previous evaluations were favorable, but the appraisal of September 1994 criticized her honesty, trustworthiness, general work performance, and "teamwork." Burton later revised the performance appraisal by removing some of the more negative remarks, but Cossette remained distressed by the incident. Cossette thereafter filed another charge with the EEOC, alleging that MP&L issued the unfavorable performance appraisal in retaliation for Cossette's initial charge of disability discrimination.

Cossette reached a settlement the next year with the Postal Service, which agreed to hire her as a letter carrier on the condition that she pass a driver's examination, a drug test, and a medical examination. She began work as a letter carrier in October 1995, working longer hours and earning a higher wage than at MP&L.

After receiving the necessary right-to-sue letters from the EEOC, Cossette commenced this action in the district court against MP&L and Burton. Her nine claims were essentially threefold. First, Cossette alleged that MP&L and Burton disclosed confidential medical information about her to her co-workers at MP&L as well as to the Postal Service in violation of the ADA, and that the latter disclosure delayed her employment with the Postal Service by fifteen months. Second, she charged that the negative performance evaluation was a reprisal directed against her for filing the initial disability discrimination charge. Third, she pursued various state law claims, including disability and retaliation discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, interference with prospective advantage, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.1 In an oral ruling, the district court granted MP&L's motion for summary judgment, but its written judgment did not dispose of Count 8 of Cossette's amended complaint, which premised an ADA claim upon Burton's disclosures to Cossette's prospective co-workers in the Office Services Department. The district court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cossette's state law claims, which it dismissed without prejudice.

Cossette appealed. Because the district court did not dispose of Count 8, it did not issue a final judgment, and we dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light, 149 F.3d 1186 (table), No. 97-2813, 1998 WL 237247 (8th Cir. May 13, 1998). The district court thereafter granted summary judgment in favor of MP&L and Burton with respect to Count 8, and this appeal followed. We now.. (3) Employment entrance examination A covered entity may require a medical examination after an offer of employment has been made to a job applicant and prior to the commencement of the employment duties of such applicant, and may condition an offer of employment on the results of such examination, if-- (A) all entering employees are subjected to such an examination regardless of disability;affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to Cossette's retaliation claim, but we reverse the grant of summary judgment with respect to the illegal disclosure claims, as well as the district court's dismissal of Cossette's state law claims, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

The ADA limits the scope of information that employers may seek and disclose about their employees' medical condition. See 42 U.S.C. 12112(d) (1994). Subsection 12112(d)(3) permits employers to require a medical examination of a prospective employee only after an offer of employment has been made, and it permits them to condition a final offer of employment upon the results of the examination only under certain circumstances, including the condition that any information obtained be "treated as a confidential medical record."2 Subsection 12112(d)(4), meanwhile, prohibits employers from requiring current employees to undergo medical examinations absent a showing of job-relatedness and business necessity, generally allows employers to conduct voluntary medical examinations, and requires (by reference) that the results of such examinations be kept confidential.3 Cossette's complaint sets out two alleged violations of section 12112(d)(3) and (d)(4): first, Burton's disclosure of Cossette's back injury and lifting restriction to the U.S. Postal Service when Cossette sought employment there, and second, his disclosure of the back injury and Cossette's perceived mental deficiencies to his subordinates when Cossette sought a transfer to his department. We address each claim in turn.

A.

Viewed in the light most favorable to Cossette, the evidence shows that (i) she underwent a medical examination before transferring to Burton's department, and the examination confirmed her pre-existing back injury and lifting restriction, (ii) Burton. discovered that she was seeking a position at the U.S. Postal Service, and he disclosed Cossette's back injury and lifting restriction to her prospective employer,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
148 cases
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Grane Healthcare Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 6, 2014
    ...contains no language limiting the category of applicants and employees entitled to statutory protection. Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 969 (8th Cir. 1999). Consequently, an individual who is subjected to an unlawful medical examination or inquiry can successfully assert......
  • Armstrong v. AMERICAN PALLET LEASING INC., C07-4107-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • August 26, 2009
    ...Richland County, 429 F.3d 740, 746 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting in turn Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130)); Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 973 (8th Cir.1999) ("A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same nucleus ......
  • White v. Town of Hurley, CIV 17-0983 JB\KRS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • March 28, 2019
    ...show"the existence of an injury-in-fact, either through actual damage (emotional, pecuniary, or otherwise)"); Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 971 (8th Cir. 1999)("As we explained above, Cossette must establish a tangible injury caused by the alleged illegal disclosure" under ......
  • Franklin v. City of Slidell
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • March 27, 2013
    ...she is disabled or perceived as having a disability to state a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(2)); Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 969 (8th Cir. 1999); Fredenburg v. Contra Costa Cty. Dept. of Health Serv., 172 F.3d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1999); Karraker v. Rent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Disability Discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 16, 2014
    ...examination and inquiry provisions are not limited to qualified individuals with disabilities. Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 969-70 (8th Cir. 1999); Fredenburg v. Contra Costa County Dep’t of Health Servs. , 172 F.3d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1999); Griffin v. Steeltek, I......
  • Employee records
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part IV. Records, rules, and policies
    • May 5, 2018
    ...requirements may be subject to a civil suit by the employee for breach of confidentiality. See Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light , 188 F.3d 964, 968-70 (8th Cir. 1999) (noting that a suit for breach of confidentiality under the ADA requires a showing that (1) confidential information was ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...Health Plan of Texas , 1996 WL 121235 at p. 4 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, writ denied), §3:5.B.5 Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light , 188 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 1999), §21:7.F.1 Coston v. Plitt Theatres, Inc. , 860 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1988), §3:8.F Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall , 17 Cal. 4th 93, 948......
  • Disability Discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 9, 2017
    ...See, e.g., Armstrong v. Turner Indus., Ltd., 141 F.3d 554, 559-63 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light , 188 F.3d 964, 970 (8th Cir. 1999); Fredenburg v. Contra Costa County Dep’t of Health Servs., 172 F.3d 1176, 1181- 82 (9th Cir. 1999); Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc .,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT