William Donahue sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as retaliatory discharge under the Kansas Worker’s Compensation Act (KWCA). The jury returned a verdict for UPS, and Donahue appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Donahue suffered a heat-related injury while working as a probationary employee for UPS, resulting in hospitalization for extreme heat exhaustion, acute kidney failure, and a cracked kneecap. UPS paid Donahue workers’ compensation for three months until he was cleared to return to work. When Donahue met with UPS personnel, they offered him the option to resume or restart his training and probationary employment period. Donahue declined, and UPS subsequently terminated his employment.
Donahue filed suit against UPS, alleging failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation under the ADA, retaliatory discharge under the KWCA, and race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C § 1981. The district court granted summary judgment on the § 1981 claim but allowed the other claims to proceed to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of UPS on all remaining claims.
Legal Analysis
Waiver of Discovery Violations Argument: The court ruled that Donahue waived his arguments regarding discovery violations. Donahue never requested a new trial based on these violations during or after the trial, and he failed to argue plain error on appeal. The court noted that Donahue had opportunities to address discovery issues during the trial but did not seek appropriate relief or sanctions.
Due Process and Time Limits: Donahue argued that the district court violated his due process rights by imposing time limits on the last day of trial. The court held that Donahue waived this argument by failing to object on due process grounds during the trial and not arguing plain error on appeal.
Jury Instructions
The court addressed several of Donahue’s arguments regarding jury instructions:
Instruction Procedure: The court found that Donahue failed to properly object to the jury instruction procedure and did not argue plain error on appeal, resulting in waiver of this issue.
Definition of Terms: Donahue’s argument that the instructions failed to define “adverse action” and “protected activity” was deemed waived because he did not object until his post-trial motion and failed to argue plain error on appeal.
UPS’s Legitimate Reasons for Termination: The court ruled that Donahue waived his objection to the inclusion of UPS’s position on legitimate reasons for termination by not objecting before jury instruction and failing to argue plain error on appeal.
Business Judgment Instruction: Donahue’s argument against the business judgment instruction was found to be waived because he did not raise this particular objection before the jury was instructed and did not argue plain error on appeal.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that Donahue had waived all of his arguments on appeal.
Schrag on Law 