Whitworth v. Freightliner Corp ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE WHITWORTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-1000
FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge.
(CA-98-500-3-H)
Submitted: July 25, 2000
Decided: August 11, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Julie H. Fosbinder, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jay L.
Grytdahl, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Chi-
cago, Illinois, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
In 1993, Clarence Whitworth was hired by Freightliner Corpora-
tion (Freightliner) as a truck assembler in its plant at Mount Holly,
North Carolina. In January 1996, Whitworth was diagnosed with
bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Whitworth went on medical leave to
undergo three surgeries to relieve the condition. Doctors ultimately
recommended, however, that Whitworth be restricted from the use of
impact or vibratory tools.
The job of truck assembler covers many different tasks on and off
the assembly line. Truck assemblers can be assigned to different posi-
tions within the classification from day to day, depending on manu-
facturing needs. Freightliner therefore requires that truck assemblers
be able to perform many jobs within that classification.
For a period of time after Whitworth came back to work following
his surgeries, he was assigned on a day-to-day basis to tasks within
his restrictions. In January 1997, the company placed him on
extended medical leave, on the ground that there was no more work
within his restrictions. Whitworth filed a charge of discrimination
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. When the
Commission issued a right to sue letter, Whitworth filed this action
in state court, which Freightliner removed to federal court. After the
parties conducted extensive discovery, the magistrate judge granted
Freightliner's motion for summary judgment, and Whitworth appeals.1
We review a decision to grant or deny summary judgment de novo.
See M & M Med. Supplies & Serv., Inc. v. Pleasant Valley Hosp.,
Inc., 981 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). Summary judgment
is proper only if no material facts are in dispute and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
_________________________________________________________________
1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000).
2
An individual is protected against discrimination based on disabil-
ity if he is regarded by his employer as having a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 12102(2) (West 1995). "Regarded as having a disability" means an
employer mistakenly believes the employee has an impairment that
substantially limits a major life activity, or that a real but nonlimiting
impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Sutton v. United
Air Lines, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 2139, 2149-50 (1999). See also 29 C.F.R.
pt. 1630, App. 1630.2(l) (1999).
Whitworth argues that he presents adequate evidence to create an
issue of fact as to whether Freightliner regarded him as substantially
limited in the major life activity of working. As to working, "substan-
tially limits" means restricts 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. 29
C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). See also Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144
F.3d 294, 302-04 (4th Cir. 1998). Disqualification from a single job
is not adequate proof. Sutton, 119 S.Ct. at 2151.
The magistrate judge concluded that Whitworth did not create an
issue of fact. Freightliner was aware of Whitworth's work-related
injuries, his surgeries, and the limitations ultimately placed on him by
his doctors. Based upon this information, Freightliner decided that
Whitworth could not work as a truck assembler. The magistrate judge
held that Freightliner did not have a mistaken understanding of Whit-
worth's condition and restrictions, but one based on the facts.
We conclude that the magistrate judge did not err. In the job of
truck assembler, each worker must be capable of moving to a variety
of positions within the plant according to the needs of the day. A great
number of those positions involve repetitive work or work with vibra-
tory or impact machinery, from which Whitworth was restricted. It is
not inappropriate to require that an employee be able to perform mul-
tiple duties for a particular job classification. See Anderson v. Coors
Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171, 1176-77 (10th Cir. 1999) (employer
may define the job and functions necessary to perform it); Miller v.
Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 107 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 1997)
(employer with legitimate reason can require multiple duties within
job classification). Thus, Whitworth did have a substantial impair-
3
ment from the position of truck assembler, and the employer did not
have a mistaken belief concerning his limitations and abilities.2
We affirm the decision of the magistrate judge. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
2 Pursuant to a negotiated settlement of a union grievance, Whitworth
returned to work at Freightliner in 1998 as a material handler, with the
condition that he not seek to bid back into truck assembly.
4