Dose v. Buena Vista University
| Decision Date | 04 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. C01-4061-MWB.,C01-4061-MWB. |
| Parties | David DOSE, Plaintiff, v. BUENA VISTA UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Margaret M. Prahl, Heidman, Redmond, Fredregill, Patterson, Plaza, Dykstra & Prahl, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.
Gary W Armstrong, Mack, Hansen, Gadd, Armstrong & Brown, PC, Storm
Lake, IA, Daniel Wilczek, Kristen M. Ludgate, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................912
A. Procedural Background ...............................................912
B. Factual Background ..................................................913
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .........................................................918
A. Standards For Summary Judgment ......................................918
1. Requirements of Rule 56 ..........................................918
2. The parties' burdens .............................................919
3. Summary judgment in employment discrimination cases ..............919
B. Elements Of An ADA Claim .............................................920
C. Dose's Claims Under The ADA ..........................................921
1. Dose's actual disability claim ....................................921
2. Dose's claim for a record of disability ...........................923
3. Dose's claim that he was regarded as disabled .....................924
D. Nondiscriminatory Reason For Dose's Discharging ......................926
III. CONCLUSION .............................................................926
On June 11, 2001, plaintiff David Dose filed a complaint against his former employer, defendant Buena Vista University ("BVU"), seeking damages resulting from the termination of his employment on July 19, 2000. In his complaint, Dose alleges claims of disability discrimination pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and similar claims under Iowa Code Chapter 216 et seq. Specifically, Dose asserts that he was discriminated against because: (1) he is disabled; (2) he has a record of being disabled; and, (3) he was regarded as being disabled by BVU. Defendant BVU answered Dose's complaint on July 6, 2001, denying Dose's claims and asserting various defenses.
On September 3, 2002, defendant BVU filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Dose's claims. First, defendant BVU asserts that Dose is not "disabled" within the meaning of either the ADA, or Chapter 216 of the Iowa Code. Specifically, defendant BVU asserts that Dose does not have a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities. Second, BVU claims that Dose has no record of a disability. Third, BVU asserts that Dose cannot establish that he was regarded as being disabled by BVU. Finally, BVU argues that it fired Dose because he made a threat against a BVU employee and not because of any alleged disability. BVU claims that Dose cannot demonstrate that its stated reason for terminating his employment was pretextual. On September 27, 2002, Dose resisted BVU's Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding all of his claims. On October 15, 2002, BVU filed a reply brief in support of its summary judgment motion.
On October 29, 2002, the court heard telephonic oral arguments on BVU's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Dose was represented by Margaret M. Prahl of Heidman, Redmond, Fredrigill, Patterson, Plaza, Dykstra & Prahl, L.L.P., Sioux City, Iowa. Defendant BVU was represented by Daniel G. Wilzcek of Fagre & Benson, L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Gary W. Armstrong of Mack, Hansen, Gadd, Armstrong & Brown, P.C., Storm Lake, Iowa. Before discussing the standards for BVU's Motion for Summary Judgment, however, the court will first examine the factual background of this case.
The summary judgment record reveals that the following facts are undisputed.
Plaintiff Dose was employed by BVU as a custodian. He began his employment with BVU in 1994. The custodian position responsibilities include mopping and scrubbing floors, stairs and other surfaces, using light and heavy floor machines, vacuuming carpeted areas, shampooing and extracting carpeted areas, cleaning lavatories, and moving furniture.
Dose was assigned to clean the library. Sylvia Reed was his immediate supervisor. Reed, in turn, reported to Rudy Fleege. Dose was required to clean stairs and restrooms using a mop and bucket. He also had to use a large carpet extractor and a large vacuum cleaner. In addition, he needed to use a large ladder to change light bulbs in the library's ceiling. All of the equipment weighs in excess of 30 pounds.
On January 31, 2000, Dose was admitted to St. John's Regional Medical Center for treatment of a blood clot condition, pulmonary embolism. Dose now takes a blood thinner to control the condition. Dr. Jonathan Hruska issued a work restriction that Dose could not lift more than 25 pounds or shovel snow for two weeks. BVU was informed of Dose's work restriction. On February 22, 2000, Dose returned to work with his temporary work restrictions. On February 29, 2000, Dr. Hruska revised his work restrictions for Dose by extending the snow shoveling ban for the remainder of the year.
On March 2, 2000, Dr. Hruska sent a letter to Amy Dettmer, BVU's Human Resources Manager. In the letter, Dr. Hruska recommended that Dose be restricted from lifting over 25 pounds and engaging "in repetitive activities such as bending and stooping (especially when associated with lifting.)." Defendant's App. at 93. Dr. Hruska further stated in the letter that the restrictions should be in place for six weeks and then re-evaluated. Dose continued to work with his temporary work restrictions. On April 6, 2000, Dr. Hruska provided, in a note, a revised work restriction for Dose. Dr. Hruska indicated that Dose should not lift more than 25 pounds but "may continue his usual duties." Defendant's App. at 94. Dr. Hruska further indicated in the note that the restrictions should be in place for six weeks and then re-evaluated. Dose continued to work with his temporary lifting restriction of 25 pounds.
On April 18, 2000, Dr. Hruska sent Dettmer another letter. In his letter, Dr. Hruska continued the restrictions set out in his April 6, 2000, note. Dr. Hruska did not place a time limit on the restrictions. On May 16, 2000, Dr. Jeffrey Sykes released Dose to work without any restrictions. While it was Dose's understanding that he was not to engage in strenuous activities which would risk injury to his leg or another blood clot, Dr. Sykes did not place any written work restrictions on Dose. Dose performed his normal job duties. Shortly after he was released without restrictions, Dose was instructed to push a wheeled mail cart full of graduation programs from the mail room to the chapel on the BVU campus, a distance of approximately one city block. Dose estimates that the cart weighed more than 100 pounds. Dose did not attempt to move the cart. Dose did not think that he could push the cart without risking injury to his leg.
A meeting was held with Dose, Fleege, Dettmer, and Randy Flehr, BVU's Vice President of Business Services. Flegge and Dettmer expressed concern that Dose had refused to push the cart even though he had been released to work without restrictions. Dose stated that he did not feel that he could safely perform that task. It was suggested that they all call Dose's treating physician in order to determine his work restrictions. Dose agreed that it was a good idea to contact his physician. A telephone call to Dr. Sykes's office was made before the meeting adjourned. Dr. Sykes was unavailable but they spoke to his nurse. She stated that she would review the issue with Dr. Sykes. No new work restrictions for Dose were given at that time.
Another custodian pushed the cart for Dose. BVU always provided Dose with assistance. BVU never denied a request from Dose for assistance. On May 19, 2000, Dr. Jon Peacock, who worked with Dr. Sykes, sent a letter to BVU in which he again placed a work restriction on Dose. Dr. Peacock stated in his letter that Dose could "return to work with a weight restriction of 25 to 30 pounds for lifting, pulling, and pushing." Defendant's App. at 97. This was the first restriction regarding pushing and pulling. Dr. Peacock also indicated in his letter that the restrictions should be in place for four weeks. Dose had not seen or spoken to a doctor between the time that he had been released to resume work without restriction on May 16, 2000, and when Dr. Peacock issued his new work restriction on May 19, 2000.
Dose was off work from May 24, 2000, to May 30, 2000, so that he could visit the Mayo Clinic. The doctor who examined Dose at the Mayo Clinic did not change his work restrictions. The physician found that Dose was not incapacitated. "Incapacity" was defined as meaning an "inability to work, attend school or perform other regular activities due to the serious health condition, treatment therefor or recovery therefrom." Defendant's App. at 82.
On June 1, 2000, Dose returned to work and was told in a meeting with Dettmer that under BVU's new Custodial Department Policy on Limited or Restricted Duty he would not be permitted to work until he had work restrictions that allowed him to perform at least 75% of his job duties. Dose was told that he could use leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, available vacation or sick time, or apply for short term disability for the time missed.
Dettmer had earlier met with Dose's supervisor to determine what effect the work restriction had on Dose's ability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v. Performance Contractors, Inc., C17-4062-LTS
...for threatening violence is a legitimate reason. Clark v. Runyon , 218 F.3d 915, 919 (8th Cir. 2000) ; Dose v. Buena Vista Univ. , 229 F.Supp.2d 910, 926 (N.D. Iowa 2002). Thus, PCI has met its burden of providing a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for discharging Goodman. The burden shif......
-
Barngrover v. W.W. Transport, No. 3:02-cv-40020 (S.D. Iowa 7/24/2003)
...of Appeals has cautioned that "summary judgment should seldom be used in employment-discrimination cases." See Dose v. Buena Vista Univ., 229 F. Supp.2d 910, 919 (N.D. Iowa 2002) (quoting Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir. 1994), which cites Johnson v. Minnesota Historical Soc......
-
Walker v. Town of Greeneville
...as panic disorder did not usually limit her activities and did not substantially limit her ability to work); Dose v. Buena Vista Univ., 229 F.Supp.2d 910, 922-23 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (plaintiff was not disabled by blood clotting condition as effects of his impairment arose only when he engaged i......
-
Oberthien v. CRST Logistics, Inc.
...capable of acting on them, Oberthien's stated intent to communicate a "cry for help" rings hollow. See also Dose v. Buena Vista Univ., 229 F. Supp. 2d 910, 926 (N.D. Iowa 2002) (declining to consider the intent behind an employee's actions because the pretext inquiry solely "concerns itself......