LOWN v. JJ EATON PLACE
Case Details
- Citation
- 235 Mich. App. 721
- Judge(s)
- Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Mackenzie and McDonald, JJ.
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
- State
- Michigan
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Employer prevailed on summary disposition. Court affirmed that plaintiff failed to establish she was disabled under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act because her lifting restriction did not substantially limit major life activities compared to the average person.
Excerpt
LOWN v JJ EATON PLACE Docket No. 205937. Submitted March 2, 1999, at Lansing. Decided June 4, 1999, at 9:05 am. Leave to appeal sought. Joyce Lown brought an action in the Eaton Circuit Court against JJ Eaton Place, her former employer, alleging that endometriosis and a restriction placed on her by her physician against lifting more than fifteen pounds after surgery constituted a disability under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (pwdcra), MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550(101) et seq., and that the defendant terminated her employment as a cook in violation of the pwdcra when she refused to perform dishwashing duties that would have involved lifting items weighing more than fifteen pounds. At the hearing on the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the plaintiff orally requested to be allowed to amend her complaint to allege other disabilities. The court, Calvin E. Osterhaven, J., denied the motion to amend and granted summary disposition for the defendant, ruling that the plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the pwdcra. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held: 1. The issue regarding the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint is not preserved for appeal in the absence of a written order or judgment by the trial court denying the request. In any event, because the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement of MCR 2.118(A)(4) that the amendment be in writing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs request. 2. The trial court did not err in granting summary disposition for the defendant. A handicap, for purposes of the pwdcra, is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities and is unrelated to an individual’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or to the individual’s qualifications for employment or promotion. In this case, the plaintiff failed to show that her lifting restriction substantially limited the major life activity of lifting or working. Affirmed. 1. Civil Rights — Persons with Disabilities — Employment Discrimination — Prima Facie Case. A plaintiff seeking to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act must demonstrate that the plaintiff is disabled as defined by the act, that the disability is unrelated to the plaintiff’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job, and that the plaintiff was discriminated against in one of the ways described in the statute (MCL 37.1101 et seg.; MSA 3.550(101] et seg.). 2. Civil Rights — Persons with Disabilities — Employment Discrimination — Disabilities — Major Life Activities. A disability, for purposes of the employment discrimination provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, is a determinable physical or mental characteristic that substantially limits one or more of the mqjor life activities of the individual having the disability and is unrelated to the individual’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or to the individual’s qualifications for employment or promotion; whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is determined in light of the nature and severity of the impairment, its duration or expected duration, and its permanent or expected permanent or long-term effect (MCL 37.1103[d][i][A]; MSA 3.550(103][d][i][A]). 3. Civil Rights — Persons with Disabilities — Employment Discrimination — Disabilities — Lifting Restrictions. A medical restriction limiting the amount of weight an employee may lift constitutes a disability under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act when it imposes substantial limitations on the employee’s ability to perform the normal activities of daily living; a lifting restriction of twenty-five pounds is not a substantial limitation and does not constitute a disability under the act (MCL 37.1103[d][i][A]; MSA 3.550(103][d][i][A]). 4. Civil Rights — Persons with Disabilities — Employment Discrimination — Disabilities — Major Life Activities. Working, in the absence of any other major life activity that is substantially limited by an individual’s disability, may be considered a major life activity for purposes of the employment discrimination provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act; a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working is shown upon a demonstration that the individual is significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities; an impairment that interferes with an individual’s ability to do a particular job, but does not significantly decrease the individual’s ability to obtain satisfactory employment elsewhere, does not substantially limit the major life activity of working (MCL 37.1103[d][i][A]; MSA 3.550[103][D][i][A]). Rapaport, Pollok, Farrell & Waldron, PC. (by Mark S. Farrell), for the plaintiff. Murphy, Brenton & Spagnuolo, PC. (by Michael S. Wellman), for the defendant. Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Mackenzie and McDonald, JJ. Cavanagh, P.J. Plaintiff Joyce Lown appeals as of right the trial court order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this action under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), MCL 37.1101 et seq.-, MSA 3.550(101) et seq. We affirm. Defendant JJ Eaton Place is a restaurant owned in part by Deanne Davis. In July 1994, Davis hired plaintiff as a prep cook. At that time, plaintiff told Davis that she had “physical problems” that caused her to suffer intermittent pain and cramps. In August 1994, plaintiff was diagnosed with endometriosis. That same month, plaintiff underwent surgery. When she returned to work, plaintiff submitted a note from Dr. Paul Kelly dated August 17, 1994, which stated that plaintiff could “do no heavy lifting or bending until after her 1 month post operative check up.” Plaintiff’s duties as a prep cook never caused her any difficulties. Plaintiff testified that she often received help lifting heavy objects, such as bags of onions or carrots. When no assistance was available, plaintiff would make multiple trips with smaller loads. However, periodically during her employment with defendant, plaintiff was required to work as a dishwasher. Plaintiff had no problems when she had help in the dish room, but when assigned to work by herself, she experienced pain while carrying large tubs of dirty dishes and stacks of clean dishes. Plaintiff nevertheless did the work because she was afraid that she would be fired if she refused. When plaintiff arrived at work the morning of March 27, 1995, she was told by another employee that she would be working alone in the dish room that day. Plaintiff called Davis at home to tell Davis that she could not work in the dish room by herself for eight hours because she had “been up all night hurting.” Davis told plaintiff that she had to work in the dish room because several other employees were out sick. After plaintiff refused to do so, Davis told her to go home. When plaintiff returned to work several days later, she discovered that she had been fired. On October 18, 1996, plaintiff filed her complaint in the instant case. Plaintiff alleged that she was disabled within the meaning of the PWDCRA because she “suffers from endometriosis, which causes her pain in the abdomen and which restricts her ability to lift.” Plaintiff further alleged that defendant discharged her because of her status as a disabled individual, even though her disability was unrelated to her ability to perform her job, and that defendant had not discharged other, nondisabled individuals for refusing to perform dishwashing duties. On June 24, 1997, defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the basis that plaintiff had not established that she had a disability as defined in the pwdcra. Defendant conceded that plaintiff had endometriosis, but asserted that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the PWDCRA because her endometriosis did not substantially limit any major life activities. Following oral argument, the trial court held that plaintiff was not disabled under the pwdcra and therefore granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. I Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow her to amend her complaint. Plaintiff presented notes prepared by a physician, dated May 7, 1994, stating that plaintiff “has a mild speech defect and abnormal facies, almost like Down’s but no clue [sic] that she has any intellectual limitations.” In a brief opposing defendant’s motion for summary disposition, plaintiff anticipated that she would be seeking leave to amend her complaint to allege discrimination based on plaintiff’s speech defect, abnormal facies, and possible intellectual limitations. At the hearing regarding defendant’s motion for summary disposition, plaintiff orally requested leave to amend her complaint, and the trial court denied the request in the same manner. Plaintiff asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow her to amend her complaint. However, we conclude that this issue is not properly before this Court because no written order or judgment was entered by the trial court on plaintiffs request to amend her complaint. A court speaks through its orders, and the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to judgments and orders. Law Offices of Lawrence J Stockler, PC v Rose, 174 Mich App 14, 54; 436 NW2d 70 (1989). In any case, pursuant to MCR 2.118(A)(4), amendments must be in writing. In the instant case, the request to amend was oral, and plaintiff never offered any written amendments. Accordingly, because plaintiff did not comply with the court rule, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request to amend. See Burse v Wayne Co Medical Examiner, 151 Mich App 761, 768; 391 NW2d 479 (1986). II Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition. On appeal, an order granting or denying summary disposition is reviewed de novo. A motion for summary disposition may be granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) when, except with regard to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the nonmovant, the trial court must determine whether a record might be developed that would leave open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. Moore v First Security Casualty Co, 224 Mich App 370, 375; 568 NW2d 841 (1997). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the pwdcra, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that she is disabled as defined by the pwdcra, (2) that the disability is unrelated to her ability to perform the duties of a particular job, and (3) that she was discriminated against in one of the ways described in the statute. Rollert v Dep’t of Civil Service, 228 Mich App 534, 538; 579 NW2d 118 (1998). The pwdcra defines a “disability” as a determinable physical or mental characteristic of an individual, which may result from disease, injury, congenital condition of birth, or functional disorder, if the characteristic: (A) For purposes of article 2, substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual’s qualifications for employment or promotion. [MCL 37.1103(d)(i); MSA 3.550(103)(d)(i) (emphasis added).] On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in finding that she was not disabled under the pwdcra. Plaintiff asserts that she is substantially limited in the major life activity of lifting. In contrast, defendant argues that lifting does not constitute a “major life activity” under the PWDCRA. This Court has previously looked to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for guidance in construing the terms “substantially limits” and “major life activities” as used in the pwdcra. See Stevens v Inland Waters, Inc, 220 Mich App 212, 217; 559 NW2d 61 (1996). For the purpose of interpreting the pwdcra, the Stevens Court relied on federal administrative regulations to define “major life activities” as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” See id. at 217. Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is determined in light of (1) the nature and severity of the impairment, (2) its duration or expected duration, and (3) its permanent or expected permanent or long-term effect. Id. at 218. Defendant contends that “lifting” cannot be a major life activity under the PWDCRA because it was not specifically mentioned as such in Stevens. We disagree. In Stevens, this Court adopted a nonexclusive list of functions that would constitute major life activities under federal regulations. Thus, the fact that lifting is not explicitly included in the list of major life activities in Stevens is not dispositive. In Koester v Novi, 458 Mich 1; 580 NW2d 835 (1998), our Supreme Court examined lifting in the context of a pwdcra claim based on the plaintiffs pregnancy. The Court held that a “restriction limiting [the] plaintiff’s lifting abilities to twenty-five pounds is not a substantial impairment of a major life activity,” and therefore the plaintiff had not stated a claim under the PWDCRA. See id. at 9. However, the Court focused on whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a substantial impairment of a major life activity and did not address whether lifting itself constitutes a major life activity. Accordingly, we look to federal regulations and case law for guidance. The interpretative guidelines promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) state: “Major life activities” are those basic activities that the average person in the general population can perform with little or no difficulty. Major life activities include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. This list is not exhaustive. For example, other major life activities include, but are not limited to, sitting, standing, lifting, reaching. [29 CFR 1630.2(f), Appendix (emphasis added).] Federal courts, relying on these guidelines, have concluded that lifting constitutes a major life activity. See, e.g., Gutridge v Clure, 153 F3d 898, 901 (CA 8, 1998); Ray v Glidden Co, 85 F3d 227, 229 (CA 5, 1996); Dutcher v Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F3d 723, 726, n 7 (CA 5, 1995); Frix v Florida Tile Industries, Inc, 970 F Supp 1027, 1033 (ND Ga, 1997). Nevertheless, federal courts have held that where the major life activity is lifting, a general lifting restriction, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ada. See, e.g., Gutridge, supra; Zarzycki v United Technologies Corp, 30 F Supp 2d 283, 289 (D Conn, 1998). The Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held individuals who were limited to lifting less than twenty-five pounds were not, as a matter of law, disabled. See Thompson v Holy Family Hosp, 121 F3d 537, 539-540 (CA 9, 1997); Williams v Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc, 101 F3d 346, 349 (CA 4, 1996); Aucutt v Six Flags Over Mid-America, Inc, 85 F3d 1311, 1319 (CA 8, 1996); Ray, supra. In those cases, the courts essentially concluded that such a limitation is not significant when compared to the limitations and abilities of the general population. Where the weight restriction is less than twenty-five pounds, several federal courts have indicated that evidence other than the mere existence of the restriction must be presented to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the impairment imposes substantial limitations on major life activities other than work. See Helfter v United Parcel Service, Inc, 115 F3d 613, 617 (CA 8, 1997); Hilburn v Murata Electronics North America, Inc, 17 F Supp 2d 1377, 1382 (ND Ga, 1998) (“A mere assertion of diminished capacity does not constitute a disability under the ADA.”). We find an inherent inconsistency in the approach followed by those federal courts that have held that lifting is a major life activity under the ADA, but then concluded that a lifting restriction alone is insufficient to trigger the protections of that statute, given that the ADA defines a disability as an “impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.” See 42 USC 12102(2). The PWDCRA, like the ADA, requires that a disability “substantially limit]] 1 or more of the major life activities of [an] individual,” MCL 37.1103(d)(i); MSA 3.550(103)(d)(i). This Court has stated that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is determined in part by the nature and severity of the impairment. Stevens, supra. “It is not enough that an impairment affect a major life activity; the plaintiff must proffer evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that such activity is substantially or materially limiting.” Snow v Ridgeview Medical Center, 128 F3d 1201, 1207 (CA 8, 1997). Thus, a plaintiff seeking to recover under the statute has the burden of providing some evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that her disability caused substantial limitations when compared to the average person. See id. Nonwork major life activities are examined in light of whether the person can perform the normal activities of daily living. Pryor v Trane Co, 138 F3d 1024, 1027 (CA 5, 1998); Ray, supra at 229; Dutcher, supra at 726. Therefore, we hold that a lifting restriction constitutes a disability under the PWDcra when it imposes substantial limitations on an individual’s ability to perform the normal activities of daily living. Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and granting her the benefit of all reasonable doubt, we conclude that plaintiff did not establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a disability that would entitle her to the protection of the pwdcra. The medical proofs, at best, establish a temporary lifting restriction that commenced after plaintiff underwent surgery in August 1994. In sworn answers to interrogatories, plaintiff stated that she was restricted from lifting over ten to fifteen pounds from August 1994 through August 1996. At the time of plaintiff’s deposition on May 20, 1997, she was able to lift objects weighing up to twenty-five pounds. Federal courts have held that evidence of a twenty-five-pound lifting limitation does not suffice to establish a genuine issue of a material fact regarding the existence of a disability because it is not a substantial limitation when compared to the average person. See Thomp son, supra; Williams, supra; Aucutt, supra; Ray, supra. We adopt this holding, which is consistent with the result reached by our Supreme Court in Koester, supra. Accordingly, the fact that plaintiff is unable to lift more than twenty-five pounds does not establish that she is disabled within the meaning of the PWDCRA. Thus, the evidence establishes only that plaintiff had a temporary lifting restriction of no more than ten to fifteen pounds, which was in place for two years. As a general rule, “[intermittent, episodic impairments are not disabilities, the standard example being a broken leg.” Vande Zande v Wisconsin Dep’t of Administration, 44 F3d 538, 544 (CA 7, 1995), citing 29 CFR 1630.2Q), Appendix. Federal courts have not delineated the precise moment when a “temporary
Similar Rulings
The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.