Shaver v. Independent Stave Company
350 F.3d 716 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hostile work environment claim is actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but requires harassment that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment. Separately, an employer commits unlawful retaliation by giving a negative job reference because of a former employee's protected activity, regardless of whether the employee solicited the reference with the intent of 'manufacturing' a claim.
Facts:
- John Christopher Shaver has nocturnal epilepsy and underwent brain surgery, after which a metal plate was installed in his skull.
- Shaver worked at a timber mill for Salem Wood Products Company.
- A supervisor learned of Shaver's epilepsy and the metal plate when Shaver was injured on the job and taken to a hospital.
- The supervisor then disclosed this medical information to Shaver's co-workers without authorization.
- Over the next two years, co-workers and supervisors frequently called Shaver 'platehead' and made comments suggesting he was stupid.
- Salem later fired Shaver, citing insubordination.
- After being fired and initiating a lawsuit against Salem, Shaver applied for other jobs and provided the name of his former supervisor, Charles Bacon, as a reference.
- When contacted by prospective employers, Bacon stated he could not recommend Shaver because Shaver had 'a get rich quick scheme involving suing companies.'
Procedural Posture:
- John Christopher Shaver filed a lawsuit against Independent Stave Company in the United States District Court, alleging disability harassment and retaliation under the ADA and the Missouri Human Rights Act.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Shaver's claims.
- Shaver, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
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 employer's negative job reference, given because a former employee filed an ADA lawsuit, constitute unlawful retaliation under the ADA, even if the employee intentionally solicited the reference to 'manufacture' a retaliation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold
Yes, an employer's negative job reference motivated by a former employee's protected activity constitutes unlawful retaliation, regardless of the employee's motives in seeking the reference. The court rejected the district court’s 'manufactured claim' theory, holding that the ADA's anti-retaliation provision focuses exclusively on the employer's conduct and motive, not the employee's. The court analogized the situation to 'tester' cases, where individuals apply for jobs they do not intend to accept for the purpose of uncovering discriminatory practices. Such claims are permissible because they serve a 'private attorney general' function and vindicate dignitary interests protected by anti-discrimination statutes. Therefore, Shaver's potential intent to 'bait' his former supervisor into providing a negative reference is irrelevant to the validity of his retaliation claim, although it may be relevant to the amount of damages.
Analysis:
This decision formally recognized hostile work environment claims as actionable under the ADA in the Eighth Circuit, aligning it with other circuits, while also setting a high bar for what constitutes 'severe or pervasive' conduct. More significantly, the ruling on retaliation establishes a strong precedent that an employer's retaliatory motive is the sole focus of the inquiry. By rejecting the 'manufactured claim' defense, the court strengthens protections for individuals who have engaged in protected activities, preventing employers from deflecting liability by attacking the employee's motives for exposing the retaliatory conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Shaver v. Independent Stave Company