Share
In Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, the Fifth Circuit held that under the ADA, the plaintiff's impairment did not substantially limit any major life activity, including that of working, and that the employee failed to establish that she was regarded by her employer as having such impairment.
In November 1989, Dutcher seriously injured her right arm in a gun accident. After extensive surgery, Dutcher began training as a welder. In July 1991, she completed training and was hired by Ingalls Shipbuilding (Ingalls). Dutcher was initially assigned to the "bay area," a job requiring workers to climb as much as 40 feet to reach their work. On her second day of work, Dutcher requested a transfer to the "fab shop," an assignment with little or no climbing. The request was denied because she did not have seniority to transfer. During the following month, Dutcher worked in the bay area without any time off. By the end of the month, she received a transfer to a fab shop, where she worked until laid off in May 1992.
In September 1992, Dutcher was recalled and submitted to a pre-employment physical. She told the doctor about her arm and requested a non-climbing position. The doctor gave her the requested job restriction, but Ingalls told her it could not then employ her due to the restriction. Dutcher contacted Ingall's labor relations office and was asked to submit a medical report, which she did five weeks later. While reviewing the report and the reasons for its delay, Ingalls experienced another reduction requiring every welder in Dutcher's class to be laid off. Dutcher then sued Ingalls alleging that it violated the ADA by refusing to reinstate her in September 1992 to her job in the fab area. The district court granted Ingalls summary judgment, finding that the impairment did not qualify as a "disability" under the ADA. Dutcher appealed.
The Fifth Circuit stated that "the ADA prohibits discrimination 'against a qualified individual with a disability.'" The court also stated that "disability" means: (a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities; (b) a record of such an impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such impairment. The court noted that Dutcher had a permanent impairment as defined by the statute, but that "a physical impairment, standing alone, [was] not necessarily a disability as contemplated by the ADA. The court further noted that "the statute requires an impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities." [emphasis added].
The Fifth Circuit stated that "major life activities" means "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." The court noted that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is "determined in light of (1) the nature and severity of the impairment, (2) its duration or expected duration, and (3) its permanent or expected permanent or long-term impact." The court found that Dutcher's impairment did not affect any major life activity other than working, as she was able to "take care of the normal activities of daily living."
With regard to the major life activity of working, the Fifth Circuit stated that "substantially limit" means "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working." The court found that Dutcher presented no evidence that her disability prevented her from performing an entire class of jobs. The court further found that her arm injury affected only positions requiring substantial climbing. The court added that "[a]n impairment that affects only a narrow range of jobs can be regarded either as not reaching a major life activity or as not substantially limiting one." Thus, the court affirmed summary judgment, as Dutcher failed to provide evidence that her impairment substantially limited a major life activity.
Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723 (5th Cir. 1995).