Goosen v. Minnesota Dept. of Transportation

Background

Robert Wayne Goosen worked for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) as a heavy-equipment-field mechanic. His duties included diagnosing, maintaining, repairing, and fabricating parts for heavy and light-duty vehicles and specialized equipment. Much of the work involved physical tasks, including lifting, pushing, pulling, climbing, working overhead or with outstretched arms, and using vibrating tools. Some work occurred alone in remote locations.

Goosen injured his left arm at work in June 2018. After surgeries and physical therapy, his treating physician allowed him to return to work but imposed restrictions. Among other limits, Goosen could not lift or carry certain weights for more than specified periods, could not work with his arms outstretched for more than three hours per day, and could use vibrating tools with his left hand for no more than three hours per day. A second doctor agreed with those restrictions.

MNDOT assembled a Work Analysis Team to determine whether it could accommodate Goosen. After reviewing the job’s tasks and restrictions, the team concluded that Goosen could not perform the essential functions of the heavy-equipment-field-mechanic position with or without a reasonable accommodation. MNDOT also determined that it could not accommodate him in a heavy-equipment-mechanic position because there were no open positions. MNDOT offered to help Goosen search for another job, but he did not participate. After his leave ended and he had not found another MNDOT position, MNDOT treated his employment as voluntarily separated.

Late-Disclosed Affidavits

Goosen submitted affidavits from Clifford Theis, Scott Wistrom, and Dale Sauer, who had worked as MNDOT mechanics. The affidavits stated that the physical demands they experienced were less demanding than those identified by the Work Analysis Team.

The court held that it would not consider those three affidavits when deciding the summary-judgment motion. Goosen had not identified the witnesses during the required disclosure or discovery period. The court found that he had not shown a substantial justification for the late disclosure or that allowing the affidavits would be harmless. MNDOT had no opportunity to depose the witnesses during discovery, and reopening discovery would cause additional cost and delay.

The court did consider an affidavit from Richard Frauendienst, a union representative, because Goosen had identified him during discovery. Frauendienst stated that a collective-bargaining-agreement mechanism might have allowed Goosen to be moved into a heavy-equipment-mechanic position if a less senior mechanic was in the shop. The affidavit did not establish that such a position or less senior mechanic actually existed.

Summary-Judgment Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Goosen characterized his claim as one for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

For purposes of the motion, MNDOT did not dispute that Goosen had an ADA disability or that he suffered an adverse employment action. The disputed issue was whether he was a “qualified individual”—that is, someone who could perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.

The court concluded that MNDOT had provided sufficient evidence identifying the position’s essential functions. The Work Analysis Team relied on the written job description, MNDOT supervisors’ experience and judgment, the amount of time spent performing particular tasks, and the consequences of not requiring the mechanic to perform those tasks. The court gave particular attention to the requirement that the mechanic work with outstretched arms for more than three hours during the workday. That requirement appeared in the job description, and the Work Analysis Team determined that it occurred more than three hours on nearly every workday.

The court acknowledged that the parties appeared to dispute how frequently mechanics had to climb in and out of trucks. It found that dispute immaterial because Goosen could not perform the separate outstretched-arms function, which the court treated as an essential job function. Goosen did not dispute that his medical restrictions prevented him from working with his arms outstretched for more than three hours.

The court also rejected Goosen’s argument that he could have been transferred to a heavy-equipment-mechanic position. A reassignment can be a reasonable accommodation in some circumstances, but the employee must make an initial showing that an available position exists and that he qualifies for it. Goosen did not show that an open position was available. The court also noted that MNDOT was not required to move another employee from a job to create an opening.

Ruling

The court held that Goosen had not identified evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the heavy-equipment-field-mechanic position, with or without a reasonable accommodation.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted MNDOT’s motion for summary judgment. The order also dismissed Goosen’s complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.