Schlitzer v. UNIVERSITY OF IA HOSPITALS

• Decision Date: 24 January 2002
• Docket Number: No. 99-0735.,99-0735.
• Citation: 641 N.W.2d 525
• Parties: Dianne M. SCHLITZER, Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS & CLINICS and State of Iowa, Appellants.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

641 N.W.2d 525

Dianne M. SCHLITZER, Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS & CLINICS and State of Iowa, Appellants.

No. 99-0735.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

January 24, 2002.

Rehearing Denied April 8, 2002.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Joanne Moeller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

Martin A. Diaz of the Diaz Law Firm, Iowa City, for appellee.

LARSON, Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff's former employer in a suit under the Iowa and federal disability discrimination statutes. Because we conclude the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, we reverse and remand for dismissal of the suit.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.

The plaintiff, Dianne Schlitzer, was employed in the bariatric and vascular surgery unit of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UHC) in Iowa City. Many of the patients in her unit were bedridden, wheelchair-bound, amputees, or other severely disabled persons. Schlitzer stated in her brief:

This unit was made up of the morbidly obese and those patients who were vascularly compromised, often leading to amputation. As a result, the unit where [I] worked was very physically demanding.

Schlitzer was able to perform her duties without physical difficulty until December 12, 1991, when she was involved in a single-car accident in which she injured her back, neck, and left shoulder. She returned to work but continued to have problems with her injuries. Schlitzer was still receiving medical care related to her car accident when, on May 25, 1994, she reinjured her neck, back, and left shoulder while assisting a patient from a commode to a bed. She was seen in the emergency room, and her doctors advised her to stay off work for an indeterminate period.

Jan Gorman, an "accommodations specialist" for UHC, began providing accommodation services to Schlitzer on June 9, 1994. Gorman met with Schlitzer, obtained information about her condition, and discussed the need to identify permanent restrictions to determine whether Schlitzer would be able to return to work.

At the end of July 1994, Schlitzer was released to return to work with a restriction of twenty pounds lifting and limited left-arm use. However, these medical restrictions prevented her from returning to her previous position. One of her doctors indicated that a lifting limit, imposed because of her back condition, would likely become permanent. In September 1994, after a functional capacity assessment was performed, she was told to limit lifting to 7.5 pounds, no more than four times per hour, and to twenty pounds on a nonrepetitive basis.

Schlitzer had surgery on her shoulder on November 9, 1994. On March 31, 1995, she was again released to work, but with similar medical restrictions on the use of her left arm. In April 1995 the UHC assigned her a priority status for any vacancy that might become available for which she was qualified. Jan Gorman reviewed with Schlitzer the services that her office could provide. Schlitzer was to check the university's "Job Line" for vacancies, get the names of any job openings in which she was interested, and provide that information to Gorman. Schlitzer was able to access the job line either by calling a toll free number or by obtaining a hard copy at one of two University of Iowa offices. Vacancies were listed for a week or two each, and the job line was updated on a daily basis. In addition to the job line, Schlitzer had access to the Nursing News, an internal posting of available positions in the Department of Nursing.

Schlitzer only investigated three vacancies using the resources offered to her by the university, and she only pursued one of those vacancies to the point of interview. In July 1995 she applied for a job in the college of medicine, which was held open for her for several months. However, she withdrew from consideration from that position, ostensibly because of the on-call requirements. According to Gorman, Schlitzer "would have had that job." Gorman heard from Schlitzer again on October 3, 1995, when Schlitzer contacted her about a vacancy in the hospital's in vitro fertilization unit (IVF). Schlitzer filled out a request for this vacancy, and the position was held open for her for over two weeks. As before, however, she withdrew from consideration for this position — this time because the position was only half-time and because she preferred to apply for a different position.

The third job for which Schlitzer expressed an interest to Gorman was the position she had referred to when she withdrew from consideration for the IVF position. This position was in a higher pay grade, and university policy dictated that Gorman was only able to request an interview for Schlitzer. Gorman made the request, and Schlitzer was interviewed for the position in November 1995 but was not hired. Gorman did not hear from Schlitzer for over three months. In December 1995 Schlitzer filed a grievance and this civil rights complaint based on what she perceived to be UHC's failure to hire her back to a vacant position.

Despite her medical condition, Schlitzer wanted the UHC to return her to work as a nurse. On March 19, 1996, she wrote a letter to Judith Ryan, the director of nursing, in which she listed those portions of a nursing position she believed she was able to perform. Schlitzer claimed to be able to perform many functions—complete bed baths, whirlpools, initiation and follow-through with emergency functions—that the department of nursing thought were neither possible nor safe, given Schlitzer's lifting restrictions. Schlitzer's letter noted that she would need assistance with lifting over twenty-five pounds and turning large patients and requested the following accommodations:

# 1. A position that provides adequate staffing to assist me when turning or lifting heavy patients, or

# 2. A position providing cares for ambulatory patients or infants, and

# 3. I also request IV poles that allow for height adjustment.

Less than three months after writing this letter, Schlitzer was seen in the spine diagnostic center at the hospital. She told medical personnel there that "driving where she has to hold onto the steering wheel is quite difficult for her and that she is now driving short distances before taking periods of rest." Two days later, on June 7, 1996, she was seen by Dr. Hartley in the workers' health clinic where she told him that her significant back and shoulder pain "limits many of her daily activities." On July 17, 1996, Schlitzer was given her final set of medical restrictions. She was told to

observe a lifting restriction of 5 lb. above waist level, and 25 lb. to waist level (nonrepetitively, i.e., four times or less per hour). She should avoid lifting with her arm outstretched. She should avoid repetitive bending and stooping.

She was also told she should not engage in sitting, standing, or walking for more than two hours without a break. No physician has imposed any new restrictions or made any changes since that time.

Although Schlitzer did not work for the university hospital after her second injury, she remained employed in the nursing field—first for a hospice, providing limited nursing care, and then with a community college in a nurse-teaching position. She was later employed in a nursing home, where she was still employed at the time of trial.

Trial was held in January 1999. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Schlitzer, and the district court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Defendants then filed this appeal.

II. The Applicable Law.

Schlitzer filed her suit under both the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101-213, and Iowa's civil rights statute, Iowa Code ch. 216 (1997). The common goals of the Federal ADA and our civil rights act have encouraged us to look to the federal statutory and regulatory standards in applying our statute. Vincent v. Four M Paper Corp., 589 N.W.2d 55, 59-60 (Iowa 1999).

After the trial of this case to a jury and the court's judgment, the defendant requested, under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 179(b), that the court state whether the judgment was entered under both the federal and state statutes. (This was a relevant inquiry because the Federal Act entitles a claimant to a jury trial, while the Iowa Act does not.) The defendant inquired whether a different conclusion would follow in a case tried to the court, without a jury, as the Iowa statute requires. The court ruled that,

[t]o the extent the court has jurisdiction to answer the questions raised, the court, acting on the State claims, reaches the same conclusions and makes the same findings as those determined [by the jury] on the Federal claims. That is, the results of the Plaintiff's causes of action are the same in both the Federal and State claims.

After this ruling on the rule 179(b) motion, the United States Supreme Court held the federal act does not provide a cause of action for discrimination suits against states, reasoning that

Congress is the final authority as to desirable public policy, but in order to authorize private individuals to recover money damages against States, there must be a pattern of discrimination by the States which violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and the remedy imposed by Congress must be congruent and proportional to the targeted violation. Those requirements are not met here, and to uphold the Act's application to the States would allow Congress to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment....

Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374, 121 S.Ct. 955, 967-68, 148 L.Ed.2d 866, 883-84 (2001). Accordingly, we apply only the Iowa Act here.

Under the Iowa civil rights statute, Iowa Code § 216.6(1),

[i]t shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any:

a. Person to refuse to hire, accept, register, classify, or refer for employment, to discharge any employee, or to otherwise discriminate in employment against any applicant for

...