Charles W. Gribben v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 06-15964; D. C. No. CV-04-2814-PHX-FJM

Discrimination Found Proper, Retaliation Not

Charles works as a shifter driver for the UPS. He was generally assigned to an air-conditioned vehicle but due to business demands, UPS could not guarantee that he would always have an air-conditioned vehicle.

In 2000, Charles was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy and paroxysmal arterial fibrillation. He becomes light-headed, has difficulty concentrating and breathing, has chest pain when undertaking activities in extreme heat for extended periods of time and has similar symptoms when lifting weight over 50 pounds.

Charles was also told by his doctor not to engage in certain activities for more than 20 minutes at a time in temperature above 90˚ Fahrenheit.

Due to this, Charles requested that UPS provide him with an air-conditioned vehicle pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). UPS denied his request. He then filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that he was both discriminated and retaliated against on the basis of his disability.

Upon investigation, the EEOC issued a favorable cause finding by way of a Letter of Determination.

When Charles returned to work, he was denied of his request for accommodation. He was however provided with an air-conditioned vehicle for every workday. When UPS again failed to give Charles an air-conditioned car, he refused to work. UPS discharged him from work.

Charles filed a case alleging retaliation in violation of the ADA. After obtaining a Notice of Right to Sue, he filed suit against UPS.

The claim of ADA discrimination was summarily adjudged in favor of UPS. As regards the issue of retaliation, the district court also decided in favor of UPS after trial.

ADA Claim

The Court ruled that there is substantial evidence to establish that Charles’ impairment was substantial and limited his ability to perform regular daily activities including breathing, thinking and physical activities in temperatures of 90˚ or more. Accordingly, the district court erred in determining at summary judgment that Charles was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

“Substantially limits” is defined as:

1. Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform or


2. Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity

Retaliation claim

The Court affirmed the district court’s determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a claim for retaliation. The lower court was correct when it refused to give the jury a punitive damages instruction.

The Court thus affirmed the decision of the district court with respect to the issue of ADA claim but remanded the retaliation claim saying that a damages instruction may be warranted in connection with Charles disability discrimination claim.