Tyner v. Qwest Corporation

Background

James Tyner worked as a broadband technician for Qwest Corporation, doing business as CenturyLink. His work required him to install telephone, Internet, and television services at customers’ homes and businesses, work in public for extended periods, and interact courteously with customers and members of the public.

Tyner had diabetes, which sometimes caused a sudden urge to urinate. He testified that he carried a bottle in his CenturyLink van and had workplace accidents on at least ten occasions. On January 11, 2017, while working at an apartment complex, Tyner experienced an urge to urinate and did so into a bottle inside his van. The apartment complex manager saw movements suggesting that Tyner was urinating and prevented him from entering the complex. Tyner then told his supervisor, Michael Elwood, that he had diabetes. The opinion states that this was the first time Tyner notified Elwood of his condition.

CenturyLink investigated the incident. Its management team determined that Tyner’s conduct violated the company’s Code of Conduct and Employee Handbook and that termination was justified. CenturyLink terminated Tyner’s employment on February 1, 2017.

Tyner initially brought claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for failure to accommodate, reprisal, and discriminatory discharge. He later agreed to dismissal of the reprisal and discriminatory-discharge claims. The remaining claim alleged that CenturyLink failed to accommodate his disability.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.

For a Minnesota Human Rights Act failure-to-accommodate claim, the court stated that a plaintiff must show that he was a qualified disabled person, that the employer knew of the disability, and that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. An employee is qualified if he can perform the job’s essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation.

Court’s analysis

Tyner argued that CenturyLink failed to accommodate him by not allowing him to use a Brief Relief bag or similar urinal and by failing to engage in an interactive process. The court treated the interactive-process argument as abandoned because Tyner did not address it in his opposition to the motion.

The court first held that Tyner did not request an accommodation. Although he told his supervisor that he needed to urinate frequently and suddenly and used a urinal because of those urges, the court found that he was explaining why he had urinated in a bottle rather than asking for permission or another accommodation.

The court next held that, even if Tyner’s statements could be considered an accommodation request, the record did not show that use of a Brief Relief bag would have enabled him to perform the essential functions of his job. Because Tyner worked in public for extended periods, the court reasoned that the bag would have changed the container but would not have prevented him from relieving himself in public when a sudden urge occurred. The court noted that the bags were generally used by technicians who did not work in public spaces.

The court also found that Tyner never requested permission to wear adult undergarments. It stated that wearing them would have been within Tyner’s personal control and would not have required CenturyLink’s approval. The court noted that Tyner testified he could have worn them but chose not to because he was uncomfortable doing so.

Finally, the court held that any accommodation request was untimely. Tyner did not tell his supervisor about his diabetes and sudden urges to urinate until after the January 11 incident. The court stated that an employer is not required to excuse past workplace misconduct even when the conduct resulted from an employee’s disability.

The court also rejected Tyner’s argument that a jury should decide whether he should have known that urinating in view of a member of the public could result in termination. It concluded that prohibiting such conduct by employees working in public spaces was job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Disposition

The court concluded that no reasonable juror could find that Tyner requested an accommodation as required for his Minnesota Human Rights Act claim. Judge Donovan W. Frank granted CenturyLink’s motion for summary judgment. The order also states that Tyner’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.