Job Description Didn't Establish Essential Function

An employee who could not lift more than 50 pounds could pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination claim, even though his job description required lifting of 75 to 100 pounds, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held.

The plaintiff was a dialysis technical specialist (DTS) employed by Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC.  He suffered a nonwork-related shoulder injury and was granted medical leave. At the end of his leave, the plaintiff asked to return to work with a lifting restriction that started at 30 pounds but was permanently reduced to 50 pounds. Liberty rejected these proposals, relying on its written job description that stated lifting 75 to 100 pounds is an essential function of the DTS position.

The plaintiff sued, arguing that Liberty violated the ADA by not allowing him to return as a DTS. The district court granted Liberty's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual for the purposes of his discrimination claim because lifting more than 50 pounds was admittedly an essential function of the DTS position.

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Accommodating Employees' Disabilities]

The plaintiff appealed, and the appeals court rejected the district court's reasoning. The court ruled that the plaintiff had contested whether lifting more than 50 pounds was an essential function of a DTS. While Liberty had the burden to initially establish what job functions it considered essential, the plaintiff could challenge whether in practice that requirement was essential or merely marginal. The plaintiff presented such evidence in arguing that lifting 50 pounds was not a fundamental duty for a DTS.  

In his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he had to only tilt heavy dialysis recliners and that he never actually had to lift one up. Another DTS described his own lifting requirement as only about 40 pounds on a regular basis. Although the job description stated lifting 75 to 100 pounds was required as a DTS, the plaintiff disputed the veracity of this requirement using his own testimony and statements by the other DTS.

The appeals court further reasoned that, if the plaintiff could show that lifting more than 50 pounds was not an essential function of the job, he would have been a qualified individual, and Liberty's refusal to allow him to return to the DTS position may have been discriminatory.

The appeals court reversed the district court's decision and returned the case to lower courts for further litigation.

Pfendler v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC, 9th Cir., No. 16-16916 (July 2, 2018).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with Doumar Martin in Arlington, Va.