Genuine Issue Whether Heart Condition Was Substantial And Limited Employee’s Ability To Perform Regular Daily Activities
In 1982, Charles W. Gribben commenced employment with United Parcel Service and since 1998 worked as a UPS shifter driver. Shifter drivers use vehicles to transfer trailers among various sites. Gribben was generally assigned to an air-conditioned vehicle but, due to business demands, UPS could not guarantee that he would always have an air-conditioned vehicle.
In June 2000, Gribben was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathyn. He has substantial limitations as a result of this condition. He testified that he becomes light-headed, has difficulty concentrating and breathing, has chest pain when undertaking activities in extreme heat for extended periods of time, and has similar symptoms when lifting weight over 50 pounds. Gribben was told by his cardiologist not to engage in certain activities for more than 20 minutes at a time in temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Due to his medical condition, and pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Gribben requested that UPS provide him with an air-conditioned vehicle. UPS denied his request for this accommodation. Beginning in June 2002, Gribben took an unpaid leave of absence. In November 2002, Gribben filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC, alleging that he was both discriminated and retaliated against on the basis of his disability. The EEOC conducted an investigation and issued a favorable cause finding by way of a Letter of Determination dated March 17, 2004.
In June 2003, Gribben returned to work at UPS. Although UPS had denied Gribben's request for accommodation, UPS nonetheless provided him with an air-conditioned vehicle for every workday from June 2003 until March 31, 2004. On March 31, 2004, when UPS failed to provide an air-conditioned vehicle for Gribben to use, he refused to work. He was then discharged by UPS. UPS contends that Gribben was discharged for gross insubordination, while Gribben asserts that he was discharged in retaliation for the EEOC charge.
On April 1, 2004, following his termination, Gribben filed a second charge with the EEOC, alleging retaliation in violation of the ADA. The EEOC investigated that charge and issued a second favorable cause finding. After obtaining the requisite Notice of Right to Sue, Gribben filed suit alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on the discrimination claim and a jury returned a verdict in favor of UPS on the retaliation claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed as to the retaliation claim and reversed as to the disability discrimination claim. With respect to the reversal, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Gribben's heart condition was substantial and limited his ability to perform regular daily activities, precluding summary judgment on his disability discrimination claim.
Gribben v. UPS
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii.