Burris v. Novartis Animal Health U.S., Inc.

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 27, 2009
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
MICHAEL BURRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 08-6030
(D.C. No. 5:06-CV-01058-C)
NOVARTIS ANIMAL HEALTH U.S., (W.D. Okla.)
INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, PORFILIO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Burris appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
defendant Novartis Animal Health U.S., Inc., on his claims that Novartis violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213,
and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, when it
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
disciplined him and eventually terminated his employment as a territory manager
for sales (TM) for the company. The district court held that Mr. Burris had made
his prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, but had failed to show sufficiently that
Novartis’ proffered non-discriminatory reason for these actions–poor
performance–was pretextual. The district court also granted summary judgment
to Novartis on Mr. Burris’s ADA claim on the same ground and then denied
Mr. Burris’s motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) on
the basis of newly discovered evidence.
We agree with Mr. Burris that he presented sufficient evidence to survive
summary judgment on his FMLA claim, but agree with Novartis that summary
judgment on the ADA claim should be affirmed on an alternate ground.
Therefore, exercising our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in part
and reverse in part.
I.
“We review the grant of a summary judgment motion de novo.” Fye v.
Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 516 F.3d 1217, 1222 (10th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment
should be granted “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file,
and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c). “We view all evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Fye, 516 F.3d at 1223.
-2-
Mr. Burris was hired by Novartis as a TM in June 1999. He worked selling
Novartis animal health medications to veterinarians. Among the medications
Mr. Burris sold were Sentinel and Interceptor to control parasites, Deramaxx and
Adequan for arthritis pain, and Atopica for dermatitis.
Novartis evaluates its employees’ performance twice a year. The annual
performance review rates each employee with a two-part score. The first part
rates the employee’s level of achievement as to sales goals (Sales Goals). See,
e.g., Aplt. App., Vol. I at 283. The second part is more subjective, rating the
employee on his or her “Shared Values and Related Behaviors” such as
leadership, communication, commitment/self-discipline, and others (Behavior
Goals). See, e.g., id. at 285. As to each part of the score, the employee is
assigned a number between one and three, with the employee being assigned a “3”
if the employee exceeds expectations, a “2” if he or she meets expectations, and a
“1” if the employee partially met or did not meet expectations. See Aplt. App.,
Vol. I at 283, 285, 289. The more general mid-year performance review does not
assign a numerical score.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Burris, the reviews from 1999
through 2002 show that he was rated a strong and steady performer who was
probably stronger in regard to the Sales Goals than the Behavior Goals. They do
not show any serious deficiencies in either area. In 2003, Mr. Burris had a poor
sales year. He was ranked as “partially” meeting expectations at his mid-year
-3-
review, the lowest possible ranking, id. at 299, and received a 1.2 on his year-end
review, meaning he fully met his Behavior Goals, but only partially met his Sales
Goals, id. at 367. Although 2003 was Mr. Burris’s worst year, 2004 turned out to
be his best. Mr. Clary ranked him as exceeding expectations on all but three of
the mid-year goals and fully meeting expectations for those three. He stated
“[w]hat a difference a year makes–right?” and that he was “very pleased with
[Mr. Burris’s] contributions to the overall success of the district.” Id. at 360.
Mr. Burris was ranked number two in sales in the district to that point. His
overall rating was exceeds expectations, which was the highest possible rating.
In December 2004, Casey Berley took over as district manager of
Mr. Burris’s sales district. Nevertheless, Mr. Clary completed Mr. Burris’s
year-end review, giving him a 3.2 rating, meaning he fully met expectations for
his Behavior Goals and exceeded expectations for his Sales Goals. Id. at 112.
Mr. Clary stated that this was quite an improvement from the previous year but
that his sales dropped off a bit at the end of the year. He further stated:
Even though you did deliver sales results over expectations[,] your
inability to meet admin[inistrative] deadlines cost you in [your
Behavior Goals]. For someone that wants to become a [district
manager], you must do a better job in rounding out your total
performance. The job is more than just selling product.
Id. An examination of the overall total sales numbers for the TMs under
Mr. Clary, shows that as of December 30, 2004, Mr. Burris ranked third out of
-4-
seven in percentage of yearly goal achieved, with 113.46% achieved. Aplt. App.,
Vol. I at 307. The net sales figures also have Mr. Burris ranked third. Id. at 308.
But, it is the period from the beginning of 2005 that is most at issue in this
case. In February 2005, Mr. Berely worked with Mr. Burris and subsequently
critiqued his performance. In April 2005, Mr. Burris notified Mr. Berely that he
was an alcoholic and entered an inpatient treatment program on April 22. He was
in the in-patient treatment program for about a month and then attended an
out-patient program upon his release. He returned to work at the beginning of
June 2005, and on June 15, 2005, he met with Mr. Berely and was presented with
a document entitled “Discussion Points and 30 Day Objectives for Mike Burris”
(30-Day Objectives) which assigned him a number of requirements to meet in
approximately the next month. Id. at 179. Shortly thereafter, he received his
2005 mid-year performance review, where he received the lowest possible
ranking–that he “Partially Met” expectations. Id. at 348. On August 11, 2005,
Mr. Berely and a human resources department representative from Novartis
presented Mr. Burris with a “Performance Improvement Plan” (PIP) which was to
serve as his “Final Written Warning” and which contained a number of fairly
onerous sales and administrative requirements. Id. at 181-83.
On August 26, 2005, Mr. Burris sent an e-mail to Mr. Berely updating him
on his progress in regard to the PIP and acknowledging that he had fallen short of
-5-
the goals set forth on the PIP. Id. at 195. He was fired a week and a half later.
We shall discuss all of these actions in more detail below.
II.
Mr. Burris argues that when he returned to work, Mr. Berely retaliated
against him for taking FMLA leave in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2).
“Retaliation claims under the FMLA are subject to the burden-shifting analysis of
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973).” Metzler v.
Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164, 1170 (10th Cir. 2006) (citations
omitted). “To make out a prima facie [FMLA] retaliation claim, [an employee]
must show that: (1) [he] engaged in a protected activity; (2) [his employer] took
an action that a reasonable employee would have found materially adverse; and
(3) there exists a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse
action.” Campbell v. Gambro Healthcare, Inc., 478 F.3d 1282, 1287 (10th Cir.
2007) (quotation omitted). Here the district court found that Mr. Burris had made
out his prima facie FMLA retaliation case.
The burden then shifted to Novartis to offer a legitimate, non-retaliatory
reason for the adverse employment action. Metzler, 464 F.3d at 1170. It argued
it fired Mr. Burris for poor performance. Mr. Burris then had to demonstrate that
there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Novartis’s proffered
non-discriminatory reason was pretextual. Id. at 1172. “To raise a fact issue of
pretext, [Mr. Burris] must . . . present evidence of temporal proximity plus
-6-
circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive.” Id. “A plaintiff can demonstrate
pretext by showing weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies,
or contradictions in the employer’s reasons for its action, which a reasonable fact
finder could rationally find unworthy of credence.” Chavez v. Thomas & Betts
Corp., 396 F.3d 1088, 1104 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted), overruled on
other grounds by Metzler, 464 F.3d 1171 n.2. Evidence of pretext may include,
but is not limited to, prior treatment of the plaintiff, disturbing procedural
irregularities, and the use of subjective criteria. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of
Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1328 (10th Cir. 1999);
see also Orr v. City of Albuquerque, 531 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2008)
(“[P]retext can be shown in any number of ways, including but not limited to
differential treatment of similarly situated employees and procedural
irregularities.”) (quotation omitted); Rivera v. City and County of Denver,
365 F.3d 912, 922 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Similarly situated employees are those who
deal with the same supervisor and are subject to the same standards governing
performance evaluation and discipline.”) (quotation omitted).
But, while “[m]ere conjecture that the employer’s explanation is a pretext
for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary
judgment[,]” Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997)
(quotation omitted), a plaintiff need not demonstrate that discriminatory reasons
motivated the employer’s actions to avoid summary judgment, id. at 1321-22.
-7-
The plaintiff need only make out his prima facie case and present evidence
sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the employer’s proffered non-
discriminatory reason was unworthy of belief. Id. at 1321; Randle v. City of
Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 451-52 (10th Cir. 1995).
Here, the district court also held that Mr. Burris had failed to show that the
other TMs who were not given 30-Day Objectives or placed on a PIP were
similarly situated to him. It held that he had “fail[ed] to address whether the
other employees had the long history [Mr. Burris] had of subpar performance in
various areas.” Id., Vol. II. at 498.
We determine the district court erred in holding that no reasonable jury
could have found Novartis’s “poor performance” explanation unworthy of belief.
Metzler, 464 F.3d at 1172. The district court held that Mr. Burris’s “arguments
[did] not create a jury question on the issue of the criteria employed by the PIP.”
Aplt. App., Vol. II at 497. We understand this to mean that the district court
summarily held that no reasonable jury could determine that the issuance of that
PIP, with those requirements, or the disciplinary actions prior to that issuance,
could constitute FMLA retaliation. The court then went on to state that,
therefore, “[t]he relevant inquiry is not whether or not Plaintiff’s performance
merited a PIP or whether or not his failure to meet the requirements of PIP
required termination, but whether Defendant reasonably believed its actions were
correct.” Id. at 498.
-8-
It appears that after determining that disciplinary actions up to and
including the issuance of the PIP could not be reasonably considered retaliatory,
the district court then concluded that the subsequent termination could also not be
retaliatory because Mr. Burris acknowledged that he had “fallen short on the
goals set forth” in the PIP. Id., Vol. I at 195. We believe this analysis is flawed.
Considering Mr. Burris’s performance record, a reasonable jury could determine
that the 30-Day Objectives, the poor mid-year performance review, and the
onerous PIP were all part of a retaliatory course of action designed to drive
Mr. Burris from the company following his return from leave.
We look first at Mr. Burris’ sales performance prior to his leave. As noted
previously, in the middle of February 2005, Mr. Berely spent a day with
Mr. Burris in the field, and then critiqued his performance by e-mail on February
21, 2005. Mr. Berely stated that Mr. Burris had a “good rapport, and solid
business relationships with the clinics” that were visited, and made a number of
other positive comments. Id. at 185. But Mr. Berely was critical of Mr. Burris’s
communication both with him and Mr. Burris’s teammates, Mr. Burris’s
willingness to lead by example and use his experiences to the benefit of the
district, and his performance as the district’s “Atopica Product Champion.” Id.
He noted that Mr. Burris’s performance was “well below the district average” in
that had closed only two Atopica Challenges. Id. He stated that Mr. Burris need
to concentrate on “[c]alling ahead to make appointments, better attention to
-9-
follow up, and more overall effort,” and that he could not recommend that
Mr. Burris be promoted to the position of Senior TM. Id.
Nevertheless, although Mr. Berely commented that Mr. Burris had closed
only two Atopica Challenges at the time of the February critique, the sales
numbers from March 24, 2005, show that by that time there were two TMs who
had worse sales numbers than Mr. Burris in the “Derm” category, id. at 375,
which was evidently made up of Atopica sales, id. at 373. Further, Mr. Burris’
2005 mid-year review stated “[y]ou achieved our base goal for Atopica challenges
during the AC1 period,” id. at 346. The numbers also show that at that point
Mr. Burris ranked second in the district in total sales–apparently excluding two
drugs, Adequan and Ethicon–versus yearly goal, having met 28.52% of his yearly
goal at that point. Id. at 375.
As to Mr. Burris’s performance regarding Behavior Goals prior to leave,
although the annual reviews show that his Behavior Goals scores tended to lag
behind those on his Sales Goals, especially regarding his commitment to the
administrative portion of the job, he nevertheless received a rating of “2” every
year, meaning he fully met the performance expectations. He clearly had
delinquencies with his Corporate American Express Card, 1 but the record also
1
On January 28, 2005, a Novartis employee contacted Mr. Berely by e-mail,
informed him that Mr. Burris’s Corporate American Express account had an
$88.41 balance that was seventy-three days past due, and asked that despite the
“nominal” amount, Mr. Burris be talked to because “he ha[d] a history of past
(continued...)
-10-
shows that others fell behind paying their American Express accounts at times.
And while the February critique listed a number of areas in need of improvement,
it also listed a number of areas where Mr. Burris’s performance was good, and it
is fair to infer that an e-mail informing Mr. Burris he would not be promoted to
Senior TM would emphasize the negative aspects of his performance.
But two weeks after Mr. Burris returned from FMLA leave, the reviews
became decidedly more critical, with Mr. Berely almost immediately presenting
Mr. Burris with the 30-Day Objectives. These objectives concentrated not on
Behavior Goals but on Sales Goals, despite the fact that Mr. Berely admitted that
he made no adjustment to Mr. Burris’s sales targets despite his being out of the
field on medical leave for over a month.
Novartis suggests that Mr. Burris was already behind his sales goals before
he went on leave. But the only evidence it points to as support for that
proposition is testimony of another TM who made sales calls in Mr. Burris’s
territory while Mr. Burris was on leave who asserted that, at the time he began
making calls, Mr. Burris’s sales numbers “were lacking.” Id. at 134. As noted
above however, as of March 24, 2005, Mr. Burris’s was ranked number two in the
percentage of his yearly goal that he had already accomplished. Id. at 375.
Although Novartis notes that Mr. Burris got credit for any sales made by that
1
(...continued)
delinquencies.” Id. at 121.
-11-
manager, and also that outside sales representatives selling Novartis products
were also directed to pay special attention to Mr. Burris’s territory, the covering
TM testified that he only spent two to three days a week in Mr. Burris’s territory
and, while he testified he made a number of sales during that time, no specifics
were offered. A reasonable inference in Mr. Burris’s favor would be that his
sales numbers would have suffered from his absence.
The 30-Day Objectives included performing an average of five sales calls a
day, gaining ten new Deramaxx penetrations, ten new Adequan penetrations, and
five new Atopica Challenges. But the record appears to show that Mr. Burris’s
beginning-of-the-year goal for the first seven or eight months was only five new
Deramaxx penetrations, ten new Adequan penetrations, and ten new Atopica
Challenges. Id. at 309. He was also required to detail and enroll eight clinics
into a “Growing Up With Pets Promotion,” perform four in-clinic seminars
regarding that promotion, place drug samples in at least ten different accounts,
and report his progress to Mr. Berely at least once a week. Further, Mr. Berely
was clearly contemplating additional potential disciplinary action at that time. A
handwritten note at the bottom of this document, evidently written by Mr. Berely,
states “I told Mike that if the objectives were not accomplished by July 20, 2005,
we would have to move to a very formal process that was very specific and time
sensitive.” Id. (all capitalization omitted).
-12-
Mr. Burris was then given the lowest ranking on his 2005 mid-year review.
The review stated that “[a]s of June 23, 2005, you are at 83.3% of your YTD Net
Sales Goal, and 41.1% of your YE Net Goal.” Id. at 346. It also stated that
[p]resently, your Sentinel penetration is 41.79%, Interceptor
penetration is 78.98%, Deramaxx penetration is 60.29%, Adequan is
15.44%, and Atopica penetration is 33.82%. Your product
penetrations have increased since year end 2004. You rank at the top
of the district in Interceptor penetration, and are above average in
Deramaxx penetration. Your challenge for the remainder of the year
is to continue increasing your Sentinel, Deramaxx, Adequan and
Atopica penetration. Our penetration goal for Deramaxx is 70%.
Id. at 346. The review stated that Mr. Burris’s “progress towards [his] YTD goal
and [his] Year End Goal [were] well below the district average.” Id. at 347. But,
again, no consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Burris was only in the field
for a little under five of the first six months of 2005. 2
The review also made the somewhat subjective judgment that: “[t]o this
point in the year, you have unfairly pre-judged all major marketing initiatives for
2005 and have not implemented them. You are expected to implement all
marketing initiatives in your territory.” Id. It also said that he was “consistently
past due with [his] Corporate American Express Card payments.” Id. But, again,
the record shows that he was not the only TM who did not always pay his
American Express bill on time. The review also reminded Mr. Burris that he was
to update Mr. Berely on his progress on a weekly basis and that he was expected
2
Perhaps not coincidently, at 83.3% as of June 23, 2005, Mr. Burris had
attained 5/6 of his YTD Net Sales Goal.
-13-
“to better communicate with our district team members to share strategy, answer
their inquiries of you, etc.” Id.
As for the PIP, it claimed that Mr. Burris had “demonstrated a consistent
lack of communication” with Mr. Berely and his teammates on various issues,
that he had demonstrated a “consistent lack of execution of marketing programs .
. . and account growth opportunities” and that he had shown “[c]onsistent
disregard for sales goals common to the company, region, district, and territory.”
Id. at 181. The PIP then (1) referenced Mr. Berely’s February 20, 2005, e-mail to
Mr. Burris regarding the day he spent working with him; (2) asserted that
Mr. Berely was the only team member that failed to consistently report the total
number of Atopica Challenges closed each week before a weekly 5:00 p.m. Friday
deadline Mr. Berely had imposed on March 25, 2005; (3) asserted that Mr. Burris
had another late payment of his American Express Bill as of May 24, 2005, that
had still not been resolved on June 6, 2005; and (4) referenced the 30-Day
Objectives laid out on June 15, 2005, and the fact that many of them had not been
achieved as of the date of the PIP. Id. at 181-82.
The PIP also contains performance requirements that a reasonable jury
could conclude were designed to ensure failure. First, the PIP’s reporting and
other administrative requirements were onerous, and not specifically defended on
the grounds that Mr. Burris had a drinking problem. For example, it required him
-14-
to immediately improve his communications with Mr. Berely and his teammates
“in all areas,” id., and to:
[e-]mail [to Mr. Berely] by 9:00 P.M[.], each night, a re-cap of
daily activities, progress towards each goal listed above, the clinics
you saw, the representative name from each clinic that you talked
with, the phone number of the clinic and the approximate time that
you visited them. If you received an order at those clinics called
upon, I need the amount of the order, as well as the products ordered.
Also on this email, I want to see the plan of scheduled activities for
the following day, including clinic name, contact, approximate time
of call and objectives (Monday itinerary is due by 9:00 P[.]M.
Sunday). I reserve the right to call and/or visit any of these clinics at
any time to follow up on your appointment.
Give printed itineraries at the beginning of all ride withs (this
includes all field colleagues and all office personnel), with an email
copy forwarded to me two days prior to ride withs. This itinerary
should list the start time of the day and the expected end time.
Id. at 182-83 (emphasis omitted).
Mr. Burris testified that the sales requirements were also unrealistic. The
PIP required him to achieve four Deramaxx, five Atopica, and five Adequan
penetrations per week, achieving eight Deramaxx, ten Atopica, and ten Adequan
penetrations prior to August 31, 2005. Id. Mr. Burris testified:
[If] [y]ou look at my new Deramaxx penetrations and if you compare
them to what the actual penetrations are within each territory, mine
says five through the month of July and August, but, the, in the
performance improvement plan, he wants to add an additional four
per week.
So that would be 20 in the month of August, and that would be
more than 70 percent of my client base, which would be over the
national goal.
-15-
Id. at 253.
Mr. Burris was referring to the sales figures from two days prior to the PIP.
Those figures show that as of August 9, 2005, Mr. Berely was number six out of
seven TMs in the percentage of his year-to-date sales goal achieved with 82.90%.
Id. at 376. But only one of the seven had at that point achieved more than 87%.
Id. He was last in the percentage of sales goal achieved for the first half of the
year (January-June) at 88.59%, and he was fifth in the percentage of his year-end
goal achieved to that point with 51.79%. Id.
But broken down even further, Mr. Burris was third in the percentage of his
parasiticides (Sentinel and Interceptor) year-end goal achieved to that point;
second in the percentage of his pain (Deramaxx and Adequan) year-end goal
achieved to that point, fourth in the percentage of his Atopica year-end goal
achieved to that point; and fifth, third, and third in three other categories. Id. at
373. The TM who at that point in the year was last overall in the percentage of
year-end goal achieved, trailed Mr. Burris in every drug category. Id. at 373,
376.
And looking just at the first nine days of August, Mr. Burris was first in
the percentage achieved of that month’s goal. Id. at 372. He was also first in
Deramaxx orders obtained between July 15, 2002, and August 9, 2002, with 5.
Id. at 378. Of the other TMs in the district, one had three orders for that time
period and the others had one order each. Id.
-16-
From the above, a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Burris was
treated differently than his similarly situated teammates in that (1) until he took
FMLA leave, Mr. Burris’s performance was comparable or better than a number
of his teammates, (2) his leave adversely affected his sales numbers, and (3) those
weak numbers were used, along with his administrative weaknesses, to subject
him to increasingly unrealistic job requirements eventually leading to his
termination..
Finally, while there was testimony from some of the Mr. Burris’s
co-workers that he was a poor and unresponsive teammate, there was other
evidence that disputes that characterization. For example, one of the TMs
claimed that when he was hired Mr. Burris was supposed to be his mentor, but
that he did such a poor job the new TM eventually went into the field on his own.
But, although that TM testified he complained to Mr. Clary about Mr. Burris’s
efforts, Mr. Clary praised Mr. Burris in his annual review for mentoring that TM
“into [Novartis] seamlessly.” Aplt. App., Vol. I at 360. Another example is that
one of the TMs averred that Mr. Burris had a “great work ethic and was a good
performer”; that she “learned a lot from Mr. Burris”; and that she “was shocked
both professionally and personally when Mr. Burris was terminated.” Id. at 382.
In short, a genuine issue of material fact regarding Mr. Burris’s poor
performance was presented. Viewing the above in the light most favorable to
Mr. Burris, a reasonable jury could determine that Mr. Burris was treated
-17-
differently than his similarly situated teammates; that his performance was not the
reason that he was given 30-Day Objectives, received a poor mid-year 2005
review, was put on a PIP, and eventually terminated; and that Novartis’s proffered
non-discriminatory reason for these actions was therefore pretextual. 3
IV.
The district court also granted summary judgment to Novartis on
Mr. Burris’s ADA claim on the ground that he could not show that Novartis’s
proffered non-discriminatory reason was pretextual. Our reasoning above applies
with equal force to that ruling. Novartis, however, also argues that there is an
alternative reason for affirming the district court’s ruling on the ADA claim.
Novartis argues that Mr. Burris did not present sufficient evidence on summary
judgment to show that he would be able to prove his prima facie discrimination
case under the ADA. We agree.
To make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a
plaintiff must prove that he is a disabled person under the ADA, that he was
qualified for the job that he held, with or without reasonable accommodation, and
that he was discriminated against because of his disability. Jones v. UPS, Inc.,
502 F.3d 1176, 1189 (10th Cir. 2007). Novartis argued on summary judgment
3
Because we are remanding Mr. Burris’s FMLA retaliation claim to the
district court for further proceedings, we need not address his claim that the
district court erred in denying his Rule 60(b) motion seeking to present more
evidence of pretext.
-18-
that he could not show that he had a disability. The ADA defines the term
disability as a (1) “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more of the major life activities of such individual,” (2) “a record of such an
impairment,” or (3) “being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12102(2). Novartis argues that Mr. Burris cannot show that his alcoholism
substantially limits one or mor of his major life activities.
“Major life activities include such functions as caring for oneself,
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning,
sleeping, sitting, standing, lifting, reaching, and working.” Rakity v. Dillon
Companies, Inc., 302 F.3d 1152, 1158 (10th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted).
For a physical or mental impairment to be “substantially limiting”
the individual must be: “(i) Unable to perform a major life activity
that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii)
Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under
which [the] individual can perform a particular major life activity as
compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the
average person in the general population can perform that same
major life activity.”
Nielsen v. Moroni Feed Co., 162 F.3d 604, 611 n.11 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)) (brackets in original).
“We have held that alcoholism is a disability under the Rehabilitation Act.
We have also observed in dicta that the status of being an alcoholic may merit
protection under the ADA.” Renaud v. Wy. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 203 F.3d 723,
729-30 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations and footnote omitted). We have implicitly held
-19-
that drug addiction is not per se a disability, but that the addiction must
substantially limit one or more of the major life activities. Nielsen, 162 F.3d at
609-10. We see no reason that the same should not be true of alcoholism. Burch
v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 316 (5th Cir. 1997).
In support of its argument that Mr. Burris could not show that his
alcoholism substantially limited one or more of his major life activities, Novartis
pointed to Mr. Burris’s testimony that his alcoholism did not necessarily have
anything to do with a peak or valley in his sales numbers, that it did not impair
his ability to go to work or complete administrative paperwork, and that he could
perform his job functions before he decided to seek treatment and was successful
as a salesman before he sought treatment.
On appeal, Mr. Burris argues that he presented evidence that created a jury
issue as to the question of whether his alcoholism substantially limited one of his
major life activities claiming:
Alcoholism is a disease that has affected Burris both physically and
mentally. Burris has the brain of a chronic alcoholic, which affects
his thought processes, reactions to events, and social interactions.
Alcoholism has affected Burris physically due to an allergy he has
that is associated with the consumption of alcohol. The disease of
alcoholism limits Burris’ ability to take care of himself on a daily
basis. Burris must exclude himself from daily situations that are
healthy for a non-alcoholic but which could . . . lead Burris to drink
alcohol. . . . Burris presented evidence that some of his major life
activities–mental process, social interaction, his ability to care for
himself on a daily basis–are substantially limited by his alcoholism.
-20-
Aplt. Reply Br. at 11-12. 4
But a review of the record shows that while Mr. Burris testified that his
alcoholism “[a]bsolutely” limited his ability to take care of himself on a daily
basis, when pressed for specifics he testified in a very general manner that as an
alcoholic he could not drink, that he had to attend AA meetings, and that he had
to be careful not to put himself in situations that might trigger a relapse. Aplt.
App., Vol. I at 243. When asked if his alcoholism limited his ability to dress
himself he answered generally that he could not do a lot of things that
non-alcoholics took for granted because his thought process was different than a
non-alcoholic’s. When he was asked if his alcoholism limited his ability to walk,
he testified that he had to be careful not to “walk” into a situation where he
“could get upset.” Id. When he was asked if his alcoholism limited his ability to
see, he generally testified that he “sees” things differently than non-alcoholics,
giving as an example the sight of a person drinking in a bar. Id. But he testified
that as long as he continued with his AA meetings he could function “somewhat
normally” at work and as a father, again with the caveat of having to avoid certain
types of situations.
4
Mr. Burris also argues that he is disabled in that he has a record of
alcoholism and is regarded as having alcoholism under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(B)
& (C). But those subsections refer to persons who have a record of, or are regard
as having, “such an impairment,” with that impairment being one that
“substantially limits one or more of the major life activities.” Thus, considering
the evidence presented on summary judgment in this case, our reasoning below
applies to these subsections as well.
-21-
These are not examples of substantial limitations of Mr. Burris’s major life
activities. In essence, he testified that when he was drinking his job performance
did not suffer greatly, and now that he has stopped drinking he has to be careful
not to drink again. But he presented little specifics as to the adverse effects his
drinking had on his life prior to treatment and how his disease and treatment
actually affect his ability to function. Consequently, we agree the district court’s
grant of summary judgment on Mr. Burris’s ADA claim should be affirmed.
V.
The judgment of the district court on Mr. Burris’s ADA claim is
AFFIRMED. The judgment of the district court on Mr. Burris’s FMLA claim is
REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the district court for further
proceedings.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-22-