Shell v. Smith

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in ADA action alleging that defendant terminated plaintiff on account of his disability, even though defendant explained that termination was result of plaintiff’s inability to obtain CDL license to drive bus in his job as mechanic’s helper. Record contained question of fact as to whether driving bus was essential job duty of plaintiff’s position, even though job description required plaintiff to obtain CDL license, where: (1) driving bus on public roads was not part of plaintiff’s regular duties during prior 12 years of plaintiff’s tenure in position; (2) defendant failed to present any evidence that reassignment of bus driving bus duty had adverse impact on defendant’s business; and (3) record was silent as to how often mechanic’s helper might be required to drive bus. Ct. observed, though, that defendant might prevail if it could show that it had previously gone beyond dictates of ADA by restructuring plaintiff’s job so as to not require that he drive buses, but only if defendant could show that driving buses was essential duty.