Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc.
908 F.3d 428 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), an individual establishes a 'regarded-as' disability claim by showing they were subjected to a prohibited employment action because of an actual or perceived physical impairment, regardless of whether the employer perceived the impairment to substantially limit a major life activity.
Facts:
- Herman Nunies worked for HIE Holdings, Inc. ('HIE') as a delivery driver, a physically demanding job.
- In mid-June 2013, Nunies arranged to transfer to a less strenuous, part-time warehouse position by swapping roles with another employee.
- On June 14, 2013, Nunies's supervisor, Victor Watabu, informed him that the position swap had been approved.
- On June 17, 2013, Nunies told Watabu that he was experiencing pain in his shoulder.
- On June 19, 2013, Watabu informed Nunies that the transfer was rescinded and that he had to resign, citing 'budget cuts' and the unavailability of the part-time position.
- On June 26, 2013, Nunies saw a newspaper advertisement posted by HIE seeking to fill the same part-time warehouseman position.
- Following his termination, Nunies was diagnosed with a partial tear in his left shoulder.
Procedural Posture:
- Herman Nunies filed a lawsuit against HIE Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and state law.
- HIE moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of HIE, ruling that Nunies failed to establish he had a 'disability' under any of the ADA's three definitions.
- Specifically regarding the 'regarded-as' claim, the district court held that Nunies failed to present evidence that HIE subjectively believed his impairment substantially limited a major life activity.
- Nunies (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with HIE as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee establish a 'regarded-as' disability claim under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 by showing they were subjected to a prohibited employment action because of a physical impairment, without having to prove that the employer perceived the impairment to substantially limit a major life activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Tashima, Circuit Judge
Yes. An employee establishes a 'regarded-as' disability claim under the ADAAA by showing they were subjected to an adverse employment action because of an impairment, without needing to prove the employer perceived the impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity. The ADAAA explicitly broadened the definition of 'regarded-as' disability, rejecting the stricter pre-ADAAA standard that required a plaintiff to show the employer subjectively believed the plaintiff was substantially limited in a major life activity. Here, the district court erred by applying this outdated pre-ADAAA standard. Nunies presented sufficient evidence for a jury to infer causation: his approved job transfer was rescinded just two days after he disclosed his shoulder pain, and HIE offered a pretextual reason for its decision, as shown by its advertisement for the same position shortly thereafter. Furthermore, the 'transitory and minor' exception to 'regarded-as' claims is an affirmative defense that the employer, not the employee, has the burden to prove.
Analysis:
This decision is significant as it clarifies the standard for 'regarded-as' disability claims under the ADAAA in the Ninth Circuit for the first time. It formally rejects the continued application of the stricter, pre-ADAAA requirement that a plaintiff prove an employer's subjective belief that an impairment was substantially limiting. By lowering this evidentiary bar, the ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment and shifts the focus of the inquiry to the causal connection between the adverse employment action and the employee's impairment. This strengthens protections for employees who suffer discrimination based on perceived or actual health conditions that may not rise to the level of a severe, long-term disability.
Unlock the full brief for Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc.