Matthew Head v. Glacier Northwest, Incorporated, a Washington Corporation

Matthew Head appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in his action against his former employer, Glacier Northwest (“Glacier”), on his claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Oregon state law on the basis of disability and record of disability. Head also appeals the district court’s exclusion of lay opinion testimony during the trial on his perceived disability and retaliation claims. Finally, Head challenges the district court’s jury instructions requiring him to demonstrate that Glacier discriminated against him “because of’ his perceived disability and retaliated against him “because” of his request for an accommodation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse the grant of summary judgment, affirm the exclusion of lay opinion testimony, vacate the jury *1057 verdict, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 29, 2001, Glacier, Matthew Head’s employer, terminated him after he got a loader he was operating stuck in the mud. The-loader had to be extracted by another piece of equipment. In terminating Head, Glacier cited…

Specially Concurring.

I concur in the judgment and in all of the court’s opinion except Note 2 and Part III.B.2. I disagree with the court’s conclusion that the district court should choose between a “because of’ instruction or a motivating factor instruction in ADA cases. That conclusion contradicts our holdings in Part III.B.1 and Part III.B.3. In addition, it inappropriately imports a Title VII standard that does not apply in the ADA context.

In Part III.B.1 we hold that “the ADA outlaws adverse employment decisions motivated, even in part, by animus based on a plaintiffs disability or request for an accommodation — -a motivating factor standard.” 1 We also clearly state that “ ‘solely’ is not the appropriate causal standard under any of the ADA’s liability provisions.” 2 Thus, a plaintiff in an ADA case is never required to show that impermissible animus was the sole cause of an adverse employment decision. The plaintiff need only show that such animus at least partially motivated the employer to make its adverse employment decision. Consequently, any jury instruction that requires a plaintiff to show that an impermissible animus solely caused an adverse employment action…

413 F.3d 1053 Matthew HEAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLACIER NORTHWEST, INCORPORATED, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 03-35567. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 8, 2004. Filed July 6, 2005. 1 COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Scott N. Hunt, Busse & Hunt, Portland, OR, for the plaintiff-appellant. 2 William T. Grimm, Davis Grimm Payne & Marra, Seattle, WA, for the defendant-appellee. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-00373-MA. 4 Before: T.G. NELSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges; and SCHWARZER, * Senior District Judge. 5 SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge. 6 Matthew Head appeals the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in his action against his former employer, Glacier Northwest ("Glacier"), on his claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Oregon state law on the basis of disability and record of disability. Head also appeals the district court's exclusion of lay opinion testimony during the trial on his perceived disability and…