Submitted: December 15, 2016
from United States District Court for the Southern District
of Iowa - Des Moines
KELLY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and MONTGOMERY,  District
MURPHY, Circuit Judge.
Jerry Faidley worked as a delivery driver for defendant
United Parcel Service of America (UPS). His doctor restricted
his work activity after he hurt his back, and UPS did not
offer him another full time position that he was able to
perform. He sued for disability discrimination and
retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to
UPS on all claims. Faidley appeals, and we affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand.
Faidley worked for UPS as a package delivery driver. After he
injured his back twice and had hip surgery, his doctor
restricted his work day to eight hours. When UPS learned of
this restriction in 2012, it prohibited him from working as a
delivery driver because that position requires employees able
to work nine and a half hours per day. His manager also told
him that his career at UPS was over because the company would
not employ someone with a permanent restriction.
went on unpaid leave and sought a disability accommodation.
He proposed working either as a delivery driver with a daily
limit of eight hours or at a less physically demanding
position without accommodations. One of the other jobs UPS
considered was feeder driver, which involves driving trailers
between UPS locations and is less physically strenuous than
the delivery driver role. The company did not offer Faidley
this position, however, because it was unavailable at the
time. UPS then offered him a part time job that would have
reduced his seniority. He declined to accept that position
and sued UPS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) for a failure to accommodate
months later, Faidley's doctor issued a new restriction
that allowed him to work with no limit on his hours at any
job other than delivery driver. In early 2013 Faidley found a
new position at UPS as a combined pre loader and loader. In
the pre loader role, he loaded packages into delivery trucks.
As a loader, he stacked packages in semi trailers. This
combined role proved too physically demanding and caused
Faidley a great deal of pain. His doctor then limited him to
working four hours per day for five weeks as a pre loader
rather than a loader. Faidley asked to work a reduced
schedule but UPS refused because he had previously used all
of his available time in its temporary alternative work
later received another set of work restrictions. UPS then
reinitiated the accommodation process, but no full time
positions that fit his restrictions were available. UPS
offered him a part time position that he declined. Faidley
retired later that year. He then sued UPS a second time under
the ICRA for disability discrimination and retaliation
arising from its alleged failure to accommodate him in 2013.
The district court consolidated the 2012 and 2013 actions and
granted summary judgment to UPS. Faidley appeals.
review the "grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
and making every reasonable inference in his favor."
McPherson v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc., 491 F.3d 726,
730 (8th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is warranted "if
the record shows there is no genuine issue of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." Id.; see also Torgerson v. City of
Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2011) (en
first address Faidley's 2012 disability discrimination
claim. We use the same standards to analyze ADA and ICRA
discrimination claims. Tjernagel v. Gates Corp., 533
F.3d 666, 671 (8th Cir. 2008). The ADA prohibits private
employers from discriminating against qualified individuals
based on disability. Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corp.
Servs., Inc., 691 F.3d 925, 930 (8th Cir. 2012).
Discrimination includes a failure to provide "reasonable
accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of
an otherwise qualified individual with a disability."
Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)). To
prove disability discrimination, an employee must establish
"that he (1) has a disability within the meaning of the
ADA, (2) is a qualified individual under the ADA, and (3)
suffered an adverse employment action as a result of the
disability." Fenney ...