 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Butterfield v. Sidney Public School8/30/2001
but did not dispute that his limitations were the reason it removed him from employment. There was no real dispute about the reason why the district ended Butterfield's employment. . . .
The hearing examiner could not have found disability in terms that more clearly reflect this state's statutory definition of the term as further described by federal regulation, federal interpretive guidelines, and our own decisions than was done in the hearing examiner's findings and opinion.
Furthermore, the facts of this case are practically indistinguishable from the relevant facts in Hafner v. Conoco, Inc. (1994), 268 Mont. 396, 886 P.2d 947. In Hafner the plaintiff was offered a probationary position as a "helper" at Conoco's refinery in Billings. However, full time employment was conditioned on the successful completion of a pre-employment physical. Hafner was examined by the same doctor, William Shaw, who reported Butterfield's chronic back condition in this case. He noted that based on a prior knee injury , he would "expect problems [with Hafner's knee] with climbing and squatting." He concluded that Hafner had degenerative joint disease in his knee joint which would accelerate with repetitive climbing, squatting, and carrying. Shaw's opinion was reinforced by the opinion of a second physician. The personnel director at Conoco then decided that Hafner could not perform the "helper" position in a safe manner and could not be considered for further employment. Hafner filed a claim that he had been discriminated against based on a disability. However, the district court granted summary judgment to Conoco based on its conclusion that Hafner had failed to prove he was physically handicapped or was "regarded as" physically handicapped as the term was then defined at § 49-2-101(15)(a), MCA [now § 49-2-101(19)(a), MCA].
On appeal this Court was asked to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Hafner was "regarded as" physically handicapped by Conoco. We noted that it is not sufficient to prove that an employer simply regards an employee incapable of satisfying the demands of a particular job . However, citing Forrisi v. Bowen (4th Cir. 1986), 794 F.2d 931, 935, we quoted with approval that:
The statutory reference to a substantial limitation indicates instead that an employer regards an employee as handicapped in his or her ability to work by finding the employee's impairment to foreclose generally the type of employment involved. Hafner, 268 Mont. at 402, 886 P.2d at 951.
We noted that the Conoco personnel director testified that in his opinion Hafner was restricted in basic job functions that would limit his performance of work or could limit his performance of work and on that basis held:
Under the federal standard, which we adopt, and based on the testimony of the Conoco personnel director, we conclude that Hafner has established that Conoco "regarded" him as physically disabled. We hold, therefore, that the District Court erred in determining that Hafner failed to establish the first element of a prima facie case of employment discrimination. . . . Hafner, 268 Mont. at 403, 886 P.2d at 951.
We concluded in Hafner that the plaintiff's employer regarded him as physically disabled because it expressed the opinion that he was "restricted. . . .in basic job functions. . . ." It is clear from the hearing examiner's findings in this case that Butterfield was not allowed to return to work for the exact same reason. His employer considered him restricted in his ability to do heavy lifting. As such, Butterfield was regarded as restricted in the ability to perform that class of jobs which required heavy lifting and therefor
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|