Deas v. River West, L.P.

• Decision Date: 03 September 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-30154,97-30154
• Citation: 152 F.3d 471
• Parties: 8 A.D. Cases 989, 13 NDLR P 113 Allison DEAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. RIVER WEST, L.P.; et al., Defendants, Alternative Addiction Treatment Concepts, Inc.; Strother P. Lindsey-Dixon, Defendants-Appellees, River West, L.P., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 471

152 F.3d 471

8 A.D. Cases 989, 13 NDLR P 113

Allison DEAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. RIVER WEST, L.P.; et al., Defendants,

Alternative Addiction Treatment Concepts, Inc.; Strother P.

Lindsey-Dixon, Defendants-Appellees,

River West, L.P., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

No. 97-30154.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 3, 1998.

Louis Stephen Rastanis, Baton Rouge, LA, for Deas.

Myron A. Walker, Jr., Seale, Smith, Zuber & Barnette, Baton Rouge, LA, for River West, L.P.

Edward B. Dixon, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and GARWOOD and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant Allison Deas (Deas) appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, contending that the court below erred in concluding that she was not disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Responding to a classified advertisement announcing job opportunities associated with the planned opening of a pilot substance abuse program by Alternative Addiction Treatment Concepts (AATC), ¹ Deas applied for employment as an "Addiction Technician." During the application process, Deas filled out a health history questionnaire on which she disclosed that she had suffered from "epilepsy (fits, seizures)" in the past. ² She was subsequently interviewed by Dr. Strother P. Lindsey-Dixon (Dr. Dixon), medical director of the substance abuse program, and approved for hire by Dr. Dixon on July 13, 1993.

Deas commenced employment on July 29, 1993. ³ On August 9, 1993, during a staff lecture being conducted by Dr. Dixon, Deas appeared to suffer a petit mal or "absence" seizure during which she became verbally unresponsive and seemed to lose awareness of her surroundings for a brief time. ⁴ The seizure lasted only a few seconds, after which Dr. Dixon asked Deas if she was "all right." Deas responded that she was, and Dr. Dixon resumed the lecture with Deas in attendance.

A few hours later, Dr. Dixon was approached by another AATC employee, Lane Douglas (Douglas), who told her that he had seen Deas have a seizure earlier in the day. According to Dr. Dixon, Douglas told her that he had been conversing with Deas when she suddenly appeared to lose all awareness of her surroundings and was verbally uncommunicative for several minutes. Upon recovering, Deas apparently seemed to be unaware that she had just suffered a seizure. When Douglas asked her about it, Deas responded that she had been diagnosed as having a seizure disorder, but did not acknowledge that she had just experienced one.

After learning that Deas had suffered two seizures in a single day, Dr. Dixon concluded that Deas' seizures were not well controlled and became concerned that Deas would not be able to safely and adequately fulfill her duties as an addiction technician. Soon thereafter, Dr. Dixon determined that Deas could not perform the functions of an addiction technician and accordingly made the decision to discharge her. On August 13, 1993, Dr. Dixon and Peggy Miller, River West's human resources director, met with Deas to inform her that she was being discharged from employment due to her seizures. According to Deas, she was told in her exit interview that she was being fired because of her seizures and that Miller and Dr. Dixon stated that they had "both looked for another job somewhere in the hospital that could accommodate her, but that they were unable to find one, and that therefore [she] was fired from the hospital altogether."

Deas commenced suit in Louisiana state court alleging, inter alia, that her discharge violated the ADA. Defendants subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, where, upon consent of the parties, the case was assigned to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment for defendants on the basis that Deas was not disabled under the ADA. ⁵ Deas brings this appeal.

Discussion

We review a grant of summary judgment applying the same standard as the court below. Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 725 (5th Cir.1995). Summary judgment is proper when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Questions of fact are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and questions of law are reviewed de novo. Id.

Deas has never contended, here or below, that she is "actually" disabled. Rather, the essence of her claim, both in this Court and in the court below, is that her seizures do not substantially limit any major life activity, but that she was nevertheless regarded as disabled and discharged by Dr. Dixon on the basis of this misperception. Accordingly, Deas contends that she qualifies for the protections of the ADA under the "regarded as" prong of the statute's definition of "disability." ⁶

Under the ADA, an individual may qualify as "disabled" if he or she is "regarded as" having an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Bridges v. City of Bossier, 92 F.3d 329, 332 (5th Cir.1996). In its implementing regulations, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) defines three general situations or contexts in which a plaintiff qualifies for the ADA's protection under the "regarded as" prong. ⁷ See Dutcher, 53 F.3d at 728 & n. 19. We have summarized the EEOC guidance on this issue as follows:

"One is regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment if the individual (1) has an impairment which is not substantially limiting but which the employer perceives as constituting a substantially limiting impairment; (2) has an impairment which is substantially limiting only because of the attitudes of others toward such an impairment; or (3) has no impairment at all but is regarded by the employer as having a substantially limiting impairment." Bridges, 92 F.3d at 332.

As it is uncontested that Deas' seizures constitute an "impairment," ⁸ this case involves the first of the three scenarios outlined above (i.e., where an individual has an impairment that is erroneously perceived by the employer as a substantially limiting impairment). Because it is also uncontested that Dr. Dixon was the individual responsible for deciding to terminate Deas and that she did so "because of" the seizures, the question on this appeal boils down to whether Deas produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find that Dr. Dixon perceived her seizures as constituting a substantially limiting impairment. ⁹ In other words, to have made a prima facie showing of disability, Deas must have produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that Dr. Dixon perceived her as having an "impairment" and that this impairment, if it existed as perceived by Dr. Dixon, would have substantially limited one or more of Deas' major life activities. ¹⁰

Considered in the light most favorable to Deas, the summary judgment record clearly contains sufficient evidence to establish that Dr. Dixon regarded Deas as having an impairment. ¹¹ The more difficult question is whether Deas produced summary judgment evidence sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that Dr. Dixon regarded Deas' seizures as substantially limiting a major life activity. Deas advances three separate arguments in this respect. We review each in turn.

I. Seizures as a Disability Per Se

In her first argument on appeal, Deas urges this Court to hold that "seizures" constitute a disability per se and, consequently, that because she was regarded as suffering from seizures she was automatically perceived as suffering from a substantially limiting impairment. ¹² Although she cites several cases as supporting her position, Deas relies primarily on Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 104 F.3d 683 (4th Cir.1997), asserting that in that case the "Fourth Circuit held that seizures are a disability per se under the ADA." Deas finds support for her position in a passage from the opinion which reads: "To fire for seizures is to fire for disability. Seizures are 'a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of [Martinson's] major life activities,' i.e., a disability." Martinson, 104 F.3d at 686.

Although this language would appear to support Deas' position, when considered in context it becomes clear that Deas has misread the court's holding in Martinson. As is specifically noted in that opinion, the issue of the plaintiff's disability status was not before the court because the district court had assumed, for purposes of its ruling, that the plaintiff was disabled, and the defendant-appellee did not challenge this conclusion on appeal. ¹³ As it was not a contested issue, the court on appeal did not address whether the plaintiff was disabled or whether seizures were a disability per se. The quoted language appears in a section of the opinion rejecting the district court's distinction between discharging an employee based on disability and discharging an employee due to the "physical manifestations" of that disability. Thus, Martinson neither discusses nor supports the proposition that seizures constitute a disability per se. ¹⁴

The other cases relied on by Deas are equally unavailing. As the magistrate judge aptly concluded: "the cases cited by [Deas] are unpersuasive because they contain little or no analysis, assume for purposes of the ruling that epilepsy or seizures are disabling impairments, or merely rely upon cases that [similarly] have not analyzed the issue." In sum, none of the cases cited by Deas provides a persuasive rationale for recognizing either "seizures" or epilepsy as a disability per se.

Additionally, Deas makes no attempt to...