Walsted v. Woodbury County, Ia

• Decision Date: 25 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. C99-4035-MWB.,C99-4035-MWB.
• Citation: 113 F.Supp.2d 1318
• Parties: Gloria WALSTED, Plaintiff, v. WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

113 F.Supp.2d 1318

Gloria WALSTED, Plaintiff, v.WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA, Defendant.

No. C99-4035-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

September 25, 2000.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Dennis M. McElwain, Smith & McElwain Law Office, Sioux City, IA, for plaintiffGloria Walsted.

Douglas L. Phillips, Klass, Stoik, Mugan, Villone, Phillips, Orzechowski, Clausen & LaPierre, Sioux City, IA, for defendantWoodbury County.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1321
                     A. Procedural Background ......................................... 1321
                     B. Factual Background ............................................ 1322
                 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................... 1324
                III. LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................... 1325
                     A. Disability Discrimination Under The ADA ....................... 1325
                         1. Analytical framework for ADA claims ....................... 1326
                         2. Walsted's disability claim ................................ 1327
                

a. Learning and reading ................................... 1329
                            b. Thinking ............................................... 1329
                            c. Concentrating .......................................... 1330
                            d. Interacting with others ................................ 1330
                         3. Walsted's qualification ................................... 1331
                            a. Reasonableness of Walsted's proposed accommodations .... 1333
                            b. Interactive process .................................... 1334
                         4. Walsted's termination ..................................... 1337
                     B. Walsted's State Law Claim ..................................... 1342
                 IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 1343
                

This summary judgment motion requires the court to resolve novel and probing questions under the Americans with Disabilities Act as to whether an employer may lawfully discharge an employee, with very limited intellectual ability, for workplace misconduct arguably not understood as improper by the employee.

I.INTRODUCTION

On May 6, 1999, plaintiffGloria Walsted filed a complaint against her former employer, defendantWoodbury County, Iowa, seeking damages resulting from her termination on December 7, 1997.In her complaint, Walsted alleges two causes of action: a claim of disability discrimination pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq and, a similar claim under Iowa Code Chapter 216 et seq.Woodbury County answered Walsted's complaint on May 21, 1999, denying Walsted's claims and asserting various defenses.

A.Procedural Background

On February 25, 2000, Woodbury County filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on both of Walsted's claims.First, in its motion, Woodbury County claims that Walsted is not "disabled" within the meaning of either the ADA, or Chapter 216 of the Iowa Code.Specifically, Woodbury County asserts that Walsted does not have a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities.Second, Woodbury County claims that even if the court were to find that a genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to whether or not Walsted is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, Walsted, nevertheless, cannot establish a prima facie case because she was not qualified to perform the essential functions of the job.This is so, because Woodbury County argues that an essential duty of Walsted's job as a custodian required that she be "responsible and accountable for seeing that all papers, documents and belongings remain undisturbed in the respective offices," and having twice been convicted of theft arising out of behavior in the work-place, Walsted cannot demonstrate that she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job.Moreover, Woodbury County argues that it cannot reasonably accommodate Walsted's inability to perform the essential functions of the job.Third, Woodbury County asserts that Walsted cannot establish that it considered anything other than Walsted's propensity towards theft when it made the decision to discharge.

On June 1, 2000, Walsted resisted Woodbury County's Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there are genuine issues of material facts in dispute regarding both of her claims.Specifically, Walsted argues that she has raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether or not she has a disability, whether or not she was an individual with a disability who, with reasonable accommodation, could perform the essential functions of her job, and whether or not Woodbury County discriminated against her in discharging her from her employment.

On August 25, 2000, the court heard oral arguments on Woodbury County's Motion for Summary Judgment.Plaintiff Walsted was represented by Dennis M. McElwain of Smith & McElwain Law Office, Sioux City, Iowa.DefendantWoodbury County was represented by Douglas L. Phillips of Klass, Stoik, Mugan, Villone, Phillips, Orzechowski, Clausen & LaPierre, Sioux City, Iowa.Before discussing the standards for Woodbury County's Motion for Summary Judgment, however, the court will first examine the factual background of this case.

B.Factual Background

The summary judgment record reveals that the following facts are undisputed.Walsted is fifty-three years old and has a kindergarten education.She has a full scale IQ score of 73, which places her in the fourth percentile.This means that approximately 96 out of 100 people taking such a standardized test would score higher than Walsted.This full scale IQ score places Walsted in the borderline mentally retarded range.She has a kindergarten level reading ability,¹ first grade level spelling ability, and a second grade level arithmetic ability.Walsted's mental abilities were known to her supervisors and co-workers while she was employed with Woodbury County.

Woodbury County hired Gloria Walsted on October 3, 1989, to work as a custodian in Woodbury County's Building Services Department("Building Services").Building Services is responsible for the care and maintenance of the County's buildings.From the beginning of her employment with Woodbury County in 1989, through 1995, Walsted was usually assigned to custodial positions that included work with other custodians.She was responsible for general office cleaning, and maintaining restroom supplies.However, she was never required to read labels of cleansers or mix chemicals used for cleaning.

In October of 1995, Mark Elgert became the building superintendent.Elgert had no training in reference to working with disabled employees or the ADA.Elgert's duties included supervision of Walsted and the other custodians employed by the County.Shortly after Elgert became building superintendent, a co-worker of Walsted's, Linda Hendricks, reported that her wallet was missing.An investigation ensued, after which Walsted admitted that she had hidden Hendricks's wallet.Walsted stated that she wanted to play a trick on Hendricks, with whom she had worked since her employment with the County began, by hiding her wallet.Walsted was charged with Theft in the Fifth Degree, in violation of Iowa Code §§ 714.1and714.2(5).Following a bench trial, Walsted was convicted of these charges.The trial court issued the following findings of fact:

One night of October 19, 1995, Defendant[Walsted] was at work with Linda Hendricks and others.During the course of the night Defendant removed Linda Hendricks' wallet from her purse and hid it.After Linda Hendricks left work she noticed her wallet was missing.The next morning the missing wallet was reported to the Woodbury County Sheriff.The next night at work Defendant was made aware of the concern of Linda Hendricks about her missing wallet and the fact that it had been reported as stolen.

On October 25, 1995, Defendant was interviewed by Deputy Haafke regarding the wallet and after being advised of her rights admitted she"stole" it.She then took Deputy Haafke and Mark Elgert, her and Linda Hendricks' supervisor, to the location where she had hidden it.

Defendant was charged with Theft in the Fifth Degree, in violation of Iowa Code Sections 714.1and714.2(5) and asserts that her actions were in the form of a prank or practical joke and that she did not intend to keep the wallet or its contents and in support thereof points to the fact that the wallet was never removed from the work site although ample opportunity existed to do so.

SeeFindings, Conclusions and Judgment, No. SM376916, Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, July 18, 1996.For this conduct, Walsted was suspended without pay from work and referred to Woodbury County's Employee Assistance Program.Additionally, Mark Elgert provided Walsted with a memo explaining what his expectations were of Walsted's future conduct at work.²Elgert also personally explained this memo to Walsted.Thereafter, Walsted returned to work.

When Elgert became building superintendent, custodians were assigned new routes among the three County buildings for which they were responsible.For Walsted, this meant transferring from the Trosper-Hoyt building to the Woodbury County Courthouse, where she was assigned to the evening shift in the basement of the County Courthouse.Walsted's new work area was primarily the Department of Motor Vehicles.Upon her transfer to this new area, Walsted was not provided with further training or orientation with reference to this work area.Walsted was not given any orientation as to the value of automobile registration validation stickers or other items located in the Department of Motor Vehicles.

In November of 1997, the Woodbury County Sheriff's Office received a complaint from the Woodbury County Treasurer regarding the theft of automobile...