Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-0135,20-0135 |
| Citation | 962 N.W.2d 9 |
| Parties | Ronald RUMSEY, Appellee, v. WOODGRAIN MILLWORK, INC. d/b/a Windsor Windows and Doors, Liz Mallaney, and Clay Coppock, Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Randall D. Armentrout (argued) and Leslie C. Behaunek of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
David Albrecht (argued) and Madison Fiedler Carlson of Fiedler Law Firm, P.L.C., Johnston, for appellee.
This case involves the not uncommon, yet often murky, intersection between worker's compensation and disability discrimination. In this case, an injured employee with a preexisting hearing impairment continued to work while rehabilitating from a workplace injury. The employer assisted the rehabilitation by providing light-duty work consistent with the temporary workplace restrictions imposed by the employee's doctors. A disagreement arose concerning whether the employee was entitled to a specific work restriction, and the employee was fired. In the ensuing disability discrimination litigation, the employer claimed the firing was based on insubordination. The employee claimed the employer discriminated against him by firing him when he sought a reasonable accommodation for a disability. A jury accepted the employee's claim and awarded damages.
As is often the case with workplace injuries, the employer complied with physician-imposed restrictions for the work injury by providing temporary light-duty work, but that work was not otherwise available as a full-time job. Yet for disability discrimination purposes, the employee must prove he could perform the essential functions of the job. And courts, including ours, routinely hold that an employer need not create a new job as an accommodation for disability discrimination purposes. We preserve that limitation. To hold otherwise would broaden the obligations an employer owes to accommodate disabilities when an employee is injured on the job, blurring the distinct obligations an employer owes to its injured workers for purposes of worker's compensation and those it owes to its disabled employees for purposes of disability discrimination. Not every workplace injury results in a disability that can be accommodated. To the extent the plaintiff's disability claims were based on the workplace injury, the plaintiff's failure to identify any job he could perform apart from the temporary light-duty work defeats his claims.
The hearing-impaired plaintiff also brought disability claims stemming from his request for a sign language interpreter. His failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims related to that request did not depend on the worker's compensation imposed restrictions or the plaintiff's ability to prove his ability to perform a specific job. Although the jury found for the plaintiff on those claims, the jury instructions and verdict form prevent us from determining whether those verdicts were based on the work injury or the request for a sign language interpreter. The defendants are therefore entitled to a new trial on those two distinct claims.
Ronald Rumsey has been deaf since birth. He uses a hearing aid, which allows him to hear loud noises, but he relies primarily on lip reading and sign language to communicate. In 2007, Rumsey began working for Woodgrain Millwork (Windsor). Rumsey was an exemplary employee for many years, earning favorable performance reviews and "employee of the month twice," once in 2010 and once in 2012. Although he did not use them in his day-to-day work, Rumsey requested a sign language interpreter for certain events, such as speaking with human resources or attending doctor's appointments for his work-related injuries, and Windsor provided them.
In early 2015, Rumsey was working the "IG Wrap" job, where he wrapped large panes of glass for shipping. Windsor classified this job as a "Material Handler II" position. On January 21, Rumsey hurt his back and shoulder while moving a large pane of glass from the rack to the worktable for wrapping. As he twisted to position the glass, he felt a sharp pain in his shoulder and a pop in his back, causing him to drop the glass and fall to the floor. He filed a worker's compensation claim with Windsor's worker's compensation carrier and received medical treatment from company-provided doctors. Over the ensuing months, Rumsey's doctors gave him various work restrictions, and Windsor complied with the restrictions by assigning him to light-duty work.
Rumsey initially saw Dr. Daniel Miller, an occupational-medicine physician, who referred Rumsey to Dr. Todd Harbach for his shoulder and back pain on February 9. Dr. Harbach determined Rumsey's back pain was nonoperable but diagnosed impingement syndrome
in his right shoulder that would benefit from surgery. Dr. Harbach scheduled Rumsey for shoulder surgery in September and returned him to the care of other doctors for continued occupational therapy and pain management for his back. Rumsey used sign language interpreters for all of his doctor's appointments.
On July 29, Dr. Miller concluded Rumsey's back had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). Dr. Miller issued a permanent ten-pound lifting restriction at that time, and it became clear Rumsey could not return to his previous position due to the heavy-lifting requirements that were part of that job. Even though he reached MMI for his back in July, Rumsey continued to experience back pain and took substantial time off, using his sick leave and vacation days to cover the time. When he did come to work, he performed light-duty work such as inspecting the quality of glass.
Meanwhile, Dr. Harbach performed a right-shoulder arthroscopic acromioplasty
and distal clavicle excision on September 23 and ordered physical therapy for Rumsey's shoulder recovery. Rumsey returned to work in November, but he continued to experience back and shoulder pain.
Windsor's Human Resources (HR) director Liz Mallaney worked with Rumsey to implement the work restrictions imposed by his doctors. Rumsey presented evidence that Mallaney was not always patient with his requests. For instance, when Rumsey went home early one day because of back pain, Mallaney responded to the email explaining Rumsey's early departure with the single word "Dying." Rumsey testified Mallaney told him she could only implement the restrictions he believed he needed if she had a doctor's authorization but then she failed to set up doctor's appointments.
Rumsey saw Dr. Harbach on December 10 as a follow-up for his shoulder surgery. At that appointment, Rumsey reported improvement in his shoulder with continuing pain, and Dr. Harbach renewed his order for physical therapy with hopes of reaching MMI for his shoulder in four to six weeks. Rumsey also reported continuing back pain and asked whether Dr. Harbach could add a sit-down restriction to his treatment plan. Noting he had previously treated Rumsey for his back, Dr. Harbach modified Rumsey's work restrictions to add a temporary sit-down restriction.
Rumsey gave the new work restrictions, including the sit-down restriction, to Mallaney on Friday, December 11, and went home for the day. Mallaney promptly emailed Windsor's worker's compensation coordinator, saying, "Action MUST be taken on Ron Rumsey." In the email, Mallaney emphasized that the restrictions were for Rumsey's shoulder, questioning "[w]hy sit down work for a shoulder?" She also questioned Rumsey's claim that "Dr. Harbach informed him Windsor needs to deal with the back" when the back injury was closed.
The worker's compensation coordinator contacted Dr. Harbach's office and requested that Dr. Harbach submit an addendum to the document recanting the sit-down restriction because Dr. Miller, not Dr. Harbach, was treating Rumsey's back. Dr. Harbach issued an addendum Saturday morning, noting:
I had previously returned the patient to Dr. Miller, an[ ] occupational medicine physician, for continued care of his low back. Therefore, I cannot provide restrictions related to [Rumsey's] lumbar spine at this time. I retracted those restrictions and return[ed] [Rumsey] to Dr. Miller for those restrictions.
At his deposition, Dr. Harbach testified his medical opinion remained that the restriction would have helped Rumsey's pain but that he had overstepped his role so he followed the instructions of his worker's compensation liaison and issued the addendum.
What happened next is largely contested by the parties. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rumsey, the jury could have found the following. Rumsey returned to work on Tuesday. When asked to sign his work restrictions, Rumsey was surprised and confused not to see the sit-down restriction and refused to sign the modified document. A floor supervisor then asked Clay Coppock, the production manager, to discuss the restrictions with Rumsey. Coppock insisted Rumsey sign the document. Rumsey admittedly became upset and angry, so Rumsey and Coppock went to speak to Mallaney about it. On the way to Mallaney's office, Coppock repeatedly told Rumsey to sign the document.
In Mallaney's office, Coppock and Mallaney spoke in a location where Rumsey could not read their lips before they returned to speak with him. Coppock and Mallaney told Rumsey they would need to discuss the situation with Peter Crivaro, the head of HR, but that Crivaro would not arrive until 8:00 a.m., over an hour wait. Rumsey said he was going to request an interpreter for the meeting with Crivaro and, since he did not think they could locate an interpreter on such short notice, he was going home. Rumsey further testified that he tried to text his worker's compensation attorney while in Mallaney's office and Mallaney and Coppock stopped him. He sent a text shortly after he left requesting thirty minutes’ notice for him to return if Mallaney could find an interpreter for the meeting with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vroegh v. Iowa Dep't of Corr.
...The prohibition on discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act thus may extend beyond an actual employer. Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc. , 962 N.W.2d 9, 34 (Iowa 2021) ; Vivian v. Madison , 601 N.W.2d 872, 872 (Iowa 1999). Vroegh argues that a jury could find Wellmark's denial of cov......
-
Carver-Kimm v. Reynolds
...the Governor and Garrett fall within the scope of liability for her wrongful discharge claim. She cites primarily to two cases, Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork. Inc. and Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., to assert that liability is not limited to supervisors or those with decision-making authority for......
-
Valdez v. W. Des Moines Cmty. Schs.
...case. We review Valdez's appeal from the order granting Johnson's motion for directed verdict for correction of errors at law.[7] Rumsey, 962 N.W.2d at 20." '[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable the nonmoving party to determine whether the evidence generated a fact question' t......
-
Becker v. Linn Cnty.
...defendants'-to identify a “currently available vacant position the employee is qualified to perform.” (Id., at 6 (quoting Rumsey, 962 N.W.2d, at 23)). Defendants assert plaintiff never did. (Id.). Plaintiff argues that defendants' initial briefing failed to identify any specific portion of ......
-
7 Changes To Labor And Employment Legal Standards In 2023
...Rights Act (ICRA). Individual liability was in addition to the employing entity's liability. In 2021, Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., 962 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa 2021) addressed the contours of individual liability. The case dealt with alleged discriminatory decision-making. It found that indivi......