Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Idaho: Warehouse worker with lifting restrictions following surgery was not ‘qualified individual’, (May 5, 2025)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

The worker’s restrictions could not be accommodated without eliminating essential functions of the job or shifting them to other employees.

A discharged warehouse worker who had been placed under permanent lifting restrictions after surgery failed to make a prima facie showing that she was still qualified for her job upon her return to work, a federal district court in Idaho has ruled. Because the ability to (1) lift 25-30 pounds and (2) work on the “assembly side” of the warehouse in rotation were essential functions of the worker’s job, and because the accommodations she proposed were not reasonable on their face, the employer was entitled to summary judgment (Royce v. Spears Manufacturing Co., No. 1:23-cv-00225-BLW (D. Idaho Apr. 28, 2025)).

Torn rotator cuff. A discharged warehouse worker brought suit against her former employer, a manufacturer of thermoplastic pipe fittings and similar products, asserting claims of disability discrimination under the ADA and parallel Idaho law. For the majority of her 22 years of employment, the employee worked as a “stock handler,” which involved rotating between the “assembly” and the “barcode” sides of the warehouse department. One day in her 21st year, she felt her right shoulder “pop” when she was moving boxes between pallets. Despite some pain, she returned to work without seeking medical attention. When the pain worsened over time, she requested and received a “light duty” assignment and went to see a doctor. Several month later, she had surgery for a torn rotator cuff.

Lifting restrictions. Both before and after the surgery, the employee’s doctor placed restrictions on the amount she could lift. During this period, the employer continued her light duty and did not permit her to operate a forklift. When she reached maximum improvement, her doctor placed permanent lifting and carrying restrictions that precluded her return to the stock handler job. Because the employer did not have any other available positions that would comply with the restrictions, it terminated her employment. After filing with the Idaho Human Rights Commission, the employee brought suit in federal court. Following discovery, the employer moved for summary judgment.

Qualified individual. On the employee’s disability discrimination claim, the employer argued that the employee could not show that she remained qualified for the job of stock handler. The court noted that a “qualified individual” is someone “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” An individual’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job is assessed as of the time of the adverse employment action.

Essential functions. On the sub-issue of essential functions, the employer argued that rotating between the barcode and assembly sides of the warehouse department and regularly lifting between 20 and 35 pounds were among the essential functions of the stock handler position. The employee contended, on the other hand, that the only essential function of a stock handler was operation of the sit-down forklift. Noting the ADA’s instruction that “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment,” the court determined that the barcode-and-assembly rotation was an essential function of the job. The testimony of past and current employees, including the employee herself, as well as the consequences of not rotating stock handlers, supported this conclusion. There was evidence that when employees did not rotate, it resulted in an increased physical load on the employees working only in assembly, disruption in production, and staffing inadequacies.

Further, the undisputed evidence showed that the essential functions of the stock handler job included lifting between 20 and 35 pounds. The job description for a stock handler, together with the testimony of current and former employees, supported this conclusion.

“With or without” accommodation. Regarding the sub-issue of accommodation, the court rejected the employee’s argument that she could perform the essential functions of the job without accommodation. It was plain from the record that, as of the time of her termination, she could not.

Concerning whether she could perform the job with reasonable accommodation, the employee identified three possible accommodations that she believed the employer could implement: (1) not requiring her to rotate to assembly, (2) assigning her to work only on the seated forklift, and (3) having other employees lift any boxes too heavy for her. The court determined that none of these proposed accommodations were reasonable on their face. The law was well-established in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere that the ADA does not require an employer to exempt an employee from performing essential functions, or to reallocate essential functions to other employees. Such exemption and reassignment were precisely what each of the employee’s proposed accommodations would involve.

The employee thus could not establish that she was a “qualified individual” within the meaning of the ADA.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-00225-BLW.

Judge: Winmill, B.

Attorneys: J. Grady Hepworth (Law Offices of J. Grady Hepworth) for Charlene Hulet Johnson Royce. Alexander L. Grodan (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius) for Spears Manufacturing Co.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge IdahoNews