Knutson v. Ag Processing, Inc., 03-3176.

• Decision Date: 12 January 2005
• Docket Number: No. 03-3272.,No. 03-3176.,03-3176.,03-3272.
• Citation: 394 F.3d 1047
• Parties: Timothy J. KNUTSON, Cross-Appellant/Appellee, v. AG PROCESSING, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

394 F.3d 1047

Timothy J. KNUTSON, Cross-Appellant/Appellee, v.AG PROCESSING, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

No. 03-3176.

No. 03-3272.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 12, 2004.

Filed: January 12, 2005.

Becky S. Knutson, argued, Des Moines, IA (Lisa L. Ash, on the brief), for appellant/cross-appellee.

Blake F. Parker, argued, Fort Dodge, IA, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Ag Processing, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the district court entered after a jury verdict in favor of Timothy J. Knutson on his action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA),42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213.Knutson cross-appeals the district court's denial of his request for front pay.We reverse with directions to enter judgment in favor of Ag Processing.

I.

Knutson began working at Ag Processing's Eagle Grove bean processing plant in 1988.He performed a variety of jobs, eventually becoming a boiler operator.As a boiler operator, Knutson's primary responsibility was to ensure that the boilers had enough pressure to turn the turbines that created the electricity Ag Processing used to process soybeans.His job responsibilities included monitoring the control board in the boiler control room, making adjustments to the generator, watching the fires in the boiler, and adjusting the fire in the boiler.As a boiler operator, he also monitored gauges and operated buttons and valves on a daily basis.

Knutson testified about the additional tasks of "rodding the stokers" and pulling bottom ash from the boiler.Rodding a stoker (i.e., a machine for feeding a fire) involved standing on a stool and using a rod to remove obstructions in the stoker by an up and down overhead motion punching coal through to the fire.According to Knutson, the task of rodding the stokers occurs usually "once a shift, but there are days it happens twice a day, days it happens continually."

In 1998, Knutson underwent shoulder surgery.He returned to work with medical restrictions, and, for a period of time, Ag Processing allowed Knutson to call on a turbine operator for assistance.Knutson testified that the turbine operator "mostly just pulled my bottom ash and would be available by radio to help [with] other activities."Eventually, Knutson was back on full duty without restrictions, but needed assistance again after a hernia injury began to flare up.

On October 6 or 7, 1999, due to a combination of malfunctions and poor quality coal, the boilers were not creating enough energy to power the plant.To alleviate this problem, Knutson was required to expend extra effort rodding the stokers.Knutson noted the coal problems in the operator's log, saying, among other things, "Cleaned out CRAP.Called Ken Mohr to see if he had an extra man to help rod — They didn't have anyone to send.Jim — This is way over the amount of heavy rodding I should be doing."The problems continued the next day, prompting the boiler operator on duty for that shift to write "Rodded both boilers all day!What a bitch!Shoulders starting ... [to] hurt.We'll Be on light duty Also sharing Tim's pain killers...."

Jim Brown, the Energy Center Superintendent, became angry when he read Knutson's comments in the operator's log.Concerned about Brown's reaction, Knutson approached the Plant Manager, Carl Parker, who asked Knutson to see a doctor to obtain current medical restrictions.Knutson received a "work status report" from a physician's assistant, stating that Knutson's lifting should be limited to twenty pounds, overhead lifting should be restricted to once per hour, and there should be no repetitive use of Knutson's left arm.Parker requested that Knutson obtain another opinion from a licensed physician.In the meantime, he removed Knutson from his job as boiler operator and told him to report to Brown for other assignments.

Shortly after Knutson's reassignment, Brown angrily told Knutson that he should not touch anything that would affect the process of the plant, and "not even push a button."(J.A.at 186-87).Knutson was given duties hosing down dirty floors, pushing a broom to clean the plant, and painting pipes and other areas of the plant.He also was assigned to perform water tests in the spring of 2000.The new work was within Knutson's medical restrictions, and his pay was not reduced.Knutson testified that "[t]he work didn't bother me.Just the concept of why I was doing it....I was kind of degraded."

Knutson eventually obtained medical restrictions from a physician that were essentially the same as those applicable before the October 1999 incident.In November 1999, Ag Processing learned that Knutson had surreptitiously videotaped inside the plant without permission.Knutson then took a leave of absence for back surgery from December 1999 to March 2000.On March 14, 2000, shortly after he returned to work, Ag Processing terminated Knutson, for the stated reason that he violated plant rules by videotaping inside the plant in November 1999.After he was terminated by Ag Processing, Knutson worked in a variety of jobs, including delivering motorhomes, selling copy machines, and providing security.

Knutson filed a complaint seeking damages arising out of his termination.In pre-trial litigation, Knutson did not argue that he was limited in the major life activities of lifting or working, and eventually abandoned his claim that he was actually disabled as a result of impaired ability to have sexual relations with his wife.Knutson did argue that he was terminated because Ag Processing mistakenly regarded him as disabled, in violation of the ADA and Iowa Civil Rights Act.Ag Processing did not brief this issue for consideration with its motion for summary judgment, so the claim was tried to a jury.The jury found Ag Processing liable and awarded Knutson back pay and punitive damages.

Ag Processing sought judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, arguing, among other things, that Knutson failed to establish the essential elements of his "regarded as" disability claim, and that there was insufficient evidence to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury.The district court denied Ag Processing's motion.Subsequently, the district court ordered injunctive relief and reinstatement.Ag Processing appealed these rulings; Knutson cross-appealed, seeking an award of front pay.

II.

We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of lawde novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and we uphold a jury verdict unless we conclude that a reasonable jury could not have found for that party.Top of Iowa Co-op. v. Schewe,324 F.3d 627, 634(8th Cir.2003).Although we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Knutson is not entitled to "the benefit of unreasonable inferences, or those at war with the undisputed facts."Boudreau v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,249 F.3d 715, 718(8th Cir.2001)(internal quotation and citation omitted).

To succeed under the ADA,¹ Knutson must first show that he is "disabled" within the meaning of the statute.Under the ADA, the term "disability" includes, among other things, "being regarded as having,"42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C), "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities" of the claimant.42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A);see alsoSutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,527 U.S. 471, 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450(1999).The "regarded as" portion of the ADA was "intended to combat the effects of archaic attitudes, erroneous perceptions, and myths that work to the disadvantage of persons with or regarded as having disabilities."Wooten v. Farmland Foods,58 F.3d 382, 385(8th Cir.1995)(internal quotation and citation omitted).

Knutson contends that Ag Processing regarded him as having an impairment that substantially limited him in the major life activity of "working."The Supreme Court has noted that "there may be some conceptual difficulty in defining `major life activities' to include work, for it seems to argue in a circle to say that if one is excluded, for instance, by reason of [an impairment, from working with others] ... then that exclusion constitutes an impairment, when the question you're asking is, whether the exclusion itself is by reason of handicap."Sutton,527 U.S. at 492, 119 S.Ct. 2139(internal quotation and citation omitted);see alsoToyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams,534 U.S. 184, 200, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615(2002).Ag Processing has not contested, however, that "working" is a "major life activity" under the ADA, so we continue to assume the point without deciding this "difficult question."Williams,534 U.S. at 200, 122 S.Ct. 681;seeOrr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,297 F.3d 720, 724 n. 3(8th Cir.2002), cert. denied,___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2396, 158 L.Ed.2d 976(2004).

When the major life activity at issue is working, "the statutory phrase `substantially limits' requires, at a minimum, that plaintiffs allege they are unable to work in a broad class of jobs."Sutton,527 U.S. at 491, 119 S.Ct. 2139;see alsoMurphy v. United Parcel Serv.,527 U.S. 516, 523-24, 119 S.Ct. 2133, 144 L.Ed.2d 484(1999).We have been mindful of the danger that "an inability to perform a specific job always can be recast as an inability to perform a `class' of tasks associated with that specific job."Williams,534 U.S. at 201, 122 S.Ct. 681.Our court thus has emphasized that a person's inability to perform "one particular job" is not a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working, seeMaziarka v. Mills Fleet Farm, Inc.,245 F.3d 675, 679(8th Cir.2001), and that "working does not mean working at a particular job of the person's choice."Miller v. City of Springfield,146 F.3d 612, 615(8th Cir.1998).Because the...