WALKER V. CITY OF VICKSBURG
No. 5:06cv60-DCB-JMR, 2007 WL 3245169
Southern District of Mississippi, November 1, 2007

FACTS OF THE CASE: Mr. Walker, a veteran law enforcement officer, was diagnosed with diabetes over 17 years ago.  In 1998, Mr. Walker was hired by the City of Vicksburg Police Department (City) as a patrol officer.  He frequently worked the “C Shift,” which ran from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am.  In February 2004, Mr. Walker began experiencing dizziness, lapses in memory and drowsiness while on the job.  He consulted Dr. Wilson, who felt Mr. Walker should be reassigned to shifts during the standard working day.  Mr. Walker submitted to the City a letter from Dr. Wilson and requested a reasonable accommodation in his work hours.  Mr. Walker, however, was not assigned to day shifts, and returned to the C Shift in April.

In early May, Mr. Walker began experiencing blackout periods while driving. His supervisor assigned him to temporary desk duty.  Additionally, the supervisor requested a letter from Dr. Wilson assuring the City that Mr. Walker would not experience anymore blackouts, before he would be permitted to resume patrol officer duties. Subsequently, the City referred Mr. Walker to another doctor, Dr. Nicolas, who claimed there was no correlation between Mr. Walker’s diabetes and the drowsiness he experience on the night shift.  Dr. Wilson did not agree with Dr. Nicolas’ assessment and wrote a letter in response.  Dr. Wilson’s letter reiterated that because of Mr. Walker’s diabetes he should work normal daytime hours and sleep during the night, and suggested he could work any shifts between 6am and 6pm.  Mr. Walker informed the City of Dr. Wilson’s suggestion and requested the reasonable accommodation of working a day shift. When Mr. Walker returned to patrol duties, nonetheless, he was placed on the C Shift, and soon after assigned to the “B Shift” (i.e., between the hours of 3 pm and 11 pm).    

ISSUE OF THE CASE: Under the ADA, does Mr. Walker’s diabetic condition substantially limit him in the major life activities of eating, thinking, or caring for himself, such as to qualify him as a person with a disability and in need of reasonable accommodations? 

ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS: Mr. Walker alleged the City did not reasonably accommodate his disability in violation of the ADA.  Mr. Walker asserted his diabetic condition affected him in three major life activities: (1) eating, (2) thinking, and (3) caring for himself. The City argued Mr. Walker did not present any evidence of having a disability under the ADA.

Substantial Limitation. First, Mr. Walker argued he was substantially limited in the major life activity of eating because he constantly had to be vigilant about the type and timing of food he consumes.  The Court determined that his eating habits were not “restricted to a large degree,” and thus he was not substantially limited in the major life activity of eating.

Second, Mr. Walker argued his diabetes substantially affected his ability to care for himself because he suffered dizziness and periods of blackout while working the C Shift. The Court found Mr. Walker’s dizziness and blackout periods sufficient evidence of the diabetes affecting his ability to care for himself for a jury to determine he was substantially limited in this major life activity. Similarly, the Court found the dizziness and blackouts sufficient evidence of the diabetes affecting his thinking to go to a jury.

RULING: The Court concluded Mr. Walker presented enough evidence of substantial limitations to go forward with his ADA claim.  At trial, the Court will determine if Mr. Walker qualifies as an individual with disability under the ADA, and if so, will determine if the City failed to provide him a reasonable accommodation. 

POLICY & PRACTICE: 

Major Life Activities. The Court noted concern that if it determined Mr. Walker was substantially limited in the major life activity of eating, then any person who had to keep a close eye on his/her diet may be considered an individual with a disability under the ADA. This might include people who are lactose intolerant or have food allergies, as well as most everyone diagnosed with diabetes. Generally, major life activities may include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
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 DBTAC: Southeast ADA Center (Southeast DBTAC) (http://www.sedbtac.org/). This document does not provide 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.