Wenzel v. United States Irac

Wenzel v. United States

IRAC Analysis: Wenzel vs. The Missouri-American Water Company. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. February 14, 2005.

The issue at stake was what constitutes the definition of a disability under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). A plaintiff without a disability can still sue for damages if he or she was perceived as possessing a disability and was discriminated against for said 'disability.' Whether this was the case with Bennie R. Wenzel, an employee at the Missouri-American Water Company is at issue in Wenzel vs. The Missouri-American Water Company.

Rule:

disability is defined under the ADA as something that limits one or more major life activities. Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) when a plaintiff makes a case alleging discrimination, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case that he or she a disability under the terms of the ADA; that he or she has the necessary qualifications to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and the plaintiff must show that his or her employment was adversely affected due to an employment action that had a basis on his or her disability, such as a loss of wages or promotion or employment prospects.

If this prima facie case is met, then the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate there was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken against the employee. If the employer meets the burden, the plaintiff must show that the reason was due to an illegal pretext.

Additionally, individuals who are regarded as having a disability, although not actually disabled, are still protected by the ADA if the employer erroneously believes that the employee has an impairment (which would substantially limit one or more major life activity), or he employer mistakenly believes that the employee has an actual impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the employee.

Application:

In the case of Bennie R. Wenzel, Wenzel never argued he had a disability, only that his employer the Missouri-American Water Company regarded him as having a disability. His employer placed him on medical leave because Wenzel had suffered two injuries that required him to be placed on lighter duty, and limited the amount of weight he could carry. As Wenzel healed the weight requirement was slowly raised by his doctors in a series of progressive stages. Missouri-American mistakenly believed the condition permanent, and would prevent Wenzel from ever performing anything but light-duty jobs. Because the company had no permanent light-duty jobs, it placed him on medical leave. Wenzel filed a grievance with his union. During the leave, Wenzel worked at hard, manual labor jobs outside of Missouri-American.

The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and a disability as defined by the ADA must significantly restrict a major life activity. The inability to perform a single, particular job like lifting does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. However, to demonstrate that Missouri-American regarded him as unable to perform a class of jobs, Wenzel emphasizes that there was no lifting requirement in the written job description and that a Missouri-American manager testified that his injury substantially impaired a major life activity.

However, an employer may decide under the terms of the ADA that individuals with some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments to certain life tasks make a candidate less than ideally suited for a particular job and the position required Wenzel's position required heavy-lifting and working with a shovel, pickaxe, and jackhammer. Although his employer was in error when he believed Wenzel's inability to lift heavy items was permanent, employers are free to make decisions based upon mistaken evaluations and not be penalized so long as the decisions are not based in intentional discrimination.

Conclusion: