Daniel Herrick sued The Vail Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failure to accommodate, wrongful discharge, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to Vail, and Herrick appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Daniel Herrick worked as a seasonal ticket seller for The Vail Corporation from 2018 until his termination in 2021. Throughout his employment, Herrick completed annual forms indicating he did not have a disability. Herrick was repeatedly reprimanded for unprofessional behavior and disrespectful communications with guests and coworkers. On March 10, 2021, Herrick had a confrontation with a disgruntled guest, during which he yelled profanities and failed to follow protocol. Six days later, Vail terminated Herrick’s employment.
Following his termination, Herrick sent a series of increasingly threatening emails to Vail employees, including references to suicide and revenge. These emails prompted Vail to ban Herrick from its properties and obtain civil protection orders against him.
Legal Analysis
Evidentiary Ruling:
The court first addressed Herrick’s contention that the district court improperly excluded unsworn declarations from his friends and family attesting to his depression. The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding these declarations, as they failed to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 for unsworn declarations.
Judicial Bias: The court dismissed Herrick’s claims of judicial bias, noting that he had not moved to disqualify the district judge and thus waived this argument.
Failure to Accommodate: The court focused on whether Herrick established that he was disabled under the ADA. It found that Herrick failed to provide evidence that his depression substantially limited a major life activity, which is required to qualify as a disability under the ADA. The court noted that Herrick’s manager’s testimony about an “offhand comment” regarding depression during the pandemic was insufficient to establish a disability.
Wrongful Discharge: The court determined that summary judgment was proper on the wrongful discharge claim because Herrick failed to show he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, which is a necessary element of the claim.
Retaliation: Regarding Herrick’s retaliation claim, the court found that his post-termination emails did not constitute protected activity under the ADA. Additionally, the court noted that Vail’s actions of banning Herrick from its properties and obtaining a civil protection order did not qualify as adverse employment actions, as they occurred after his termination.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Vail on all three of Herrick’s ADA claims.
Schrag on Law 