GRUENER V. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
510 F.3d 661
SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, JANUARY 3, 2008

FACTS OF THE CASE:  Beginning in 1998, plaintiff Sharon Gruener worked as a PC/LAN administrator at the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company for three years and received positive reviews.  During her employment, she had degenerative joint disease in her knees and other weight-bearing joints.  After undergoing double knee replacement surgery in 2001, Gruener returned to work with a doctor’s note describing her physical limitations, including restrictions on her ability to squat, crawl, or kneel.  

The following year Ohio Casualty reorganized, and Gruener was transferred to a PC Services Technician position at a new location.  The job description indicated that the position required walking, standing, stooping, climbing, and lifting heavy materials or equipment.  After beginning at her new position, Gruener requested to flex her hours due to problems with vision at night.  Gruener’s supervisor denied the request, and checked Gruener’s personnel records for medical records pertaining to vision.  Upon doing so, he discovered the doctor’s note detailing Gruener’s physical limitations.

Gruener’s supervisor then spoke with Gruener about her limitations and found that Gruener had been asking co-workers for help with tasks she could not perform.  Ohio Casualty subsequently asked for, and Gruener provided, an updated certification of limitations.  After receiving the information, Ohio Casualty managers concluded that Gruener could not perform the essential functions of her position, and terminated her.  She remained “eligible for rehire,” however, and management encouraged her to apply for another position in the company.  Gruener declined to do so.  The trial court jury found that Gruener failed to prove she was a qualified individual with a disability.  

ISSUE IN THE CASE:  Whether Gruener produced sufficient evidence to be entitled to a jury instruction for the jury to determine whether her employer regarded her as having a disability.

ARGUMENT: An individual may be considered to have a disability under the ADA if she is regarded by her employer as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.  This provision protects employees who are able to perform a job but are rejected because of an employer’s mistaken or erroneous perceptions of their abilities.

Gruener contended that Ohio Casualty erroneously believed that she could not perform the major life activities of manual tasks and work.  With respect to manual tasks, Gruener presented evidence about difficulties she had taking care of herself, shopping, cleaning, and cooking.  With respect to work, Gruener presented evidence that she was able to perform her job with the assistance of co-workers.  

RULING:  The court found that Gruener’s evidence relating to manual tasks pointed only to her actual inability to perform manual tasks, rather than to whether her employer perceived her as having a disability.  With respect to work, the court found that Gruener’s evidence failed to show she was able to perform the job, and that there was no evidence that Ohio Casualty mistakenly regarded Gruener as having a disability. Because Gruener’s regarded-as claim lacked proof, she was not entitled to a jury instruction on the matter.  

PRACTICE: 

Jury Instructions.  During a jury trial, a court may use jury instructions to guide the jury in determining a specific issue of fact.  Parties to the case may suggest instructions for this purpose.  When a party proposes instructions for the jury to use in making a decision, the trial court may decline to instruct the jury on an issue if the evidence presented to support a finding is insufficient. In this case, Gruener proposed instructions for the jury to use in deciding whether she was regarded-as-disabled by her employer, however, the trial court judge declined to use them.

To establish that a trial court erred in not instructing on an issue, a party must show there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding on that issue.  In the present case, Gruener needed to point to evidence that Ohio Casualty mistakenly believed that she was substantially limited in a major life activity.  Because the trial court record did not contain such evidence, Gruener was not entitled to a regarded-as-disabled instruction.

LINKS:  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0001p-06.pdf 
Prepared by the legal research staff of the Burton Blatt Institute (BBI):
Centers of Innovation on Disability at Syracuse University ( http://bbi.syr.edu/) for the Southeast ADA Center (DBTAC). This is not legal advice. If you have further questions about the issues of this case that relate to you, please consult an attorney licensed in your state.