Former MnDOT employee loses appeal in disability lawsuit – Minnesota Lawyer

A former employee filed a federal lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Eighth United States Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming the district court’s decision, found that the employee was no longer able to perform the essential functions of his job and that reasonable accommodations could not be provided.

In 2018, Robert Goosen, a heavy equipment field mechanic for MnDOT, suffered a serious injury to his left shoulder, hand and ulnar nerve while on duty. This injury required several surgeries and extensive physical therapy, which resulted in significant absences from work. By 2021, after his fourth surgery, Goosen’s doctor said he had achieved maximum improvement in his condition, but could only return to work with certain physical limitations. These limitations included limited arm extension, reaching overhead, and entering and exiting equipment.

MnDOT formed a work analysis team to evaluate whether it could reasonably accommodate Goosen’s restrictions. They reviewed the essential functions of the heavy equipment field mechanic position and concluded that Goosen could not perform these functions with or without reasonable accommodation. As a result, MnDOT did not allow Goosen to return to his previous position and found that he had voluntarily resigned at the end of his leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Goosen filed a lawsuit against MnDOT, alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide reasonable accommodations. He argued that he was able to perform the essential functions of his job with the accommodations provided. The district court granted MnDOT’s motion for summary judgment, agreeing that Goosen could not perform the essential functions of his job even with reasonable accommodations.

On appeal, Goosen argued that MnDOT incorrectly defined the essential job functions of a heavy equipment field mechanic, particularly the duration of certain physical tasks. He maintained that the duration of tasks that included holding his arms straight for more than three hours per shift, holding his arms overhead for more than six hours per shift, and climbing in and out of heavy equipment for more than seven hours per shift were not necessary to perform the essential job functions.

In support of his position, Goosen argued that the job description for a heavy off-road equipment mechanic only describes the duration of these tasks as “often.” Goosen further argued that during pre-employment testing for this position, MnDOT did not require candidates to hold their arms extended and overhead or to enter and exit equipment for the time periods determined by the Job Analysis Team. Furthermore, Goosen argued that he was never personally required to perform these tasks as frequently or extensively as the Job Analysis Team found.

“MnDOT did not conduct any time studies,” said Kelly Jeanette, an attorney with Kelly A. Jeanette Law Firm LLC, which represented Goosen. “That matters because the supervisors who testified in this case said, ‘Well, it takes more than three hours to perform the essential functions of the job. You have to be able to stretch your arms for more than three hours.’ There’s no documentation to support that. The job description doesn’t support that either. If it were that important, you’d think it would be clearly stated in the job description.”

“The employee’s subjective experience is irrelevant to determining essential functions,” said Matt Mason, assistant attorney general. “This really comes down to a dispute about the amount of time spent performing this piece. The only support that appellant provides is his subjective experience, which is irrelevant.”

Judge Michael Melloy wrote: “We find that the plaintiff’s subjective experience is of little relevance to our analysis of essential job functions. Therefore, we agree with the District Court that the Labor Analysis Team “accurately and reasonably” defined the basic functions of a heavy equipment field mechanic. We therefore affirm the District Court’s conclusion that, as a result of the restrictions imposed on him, Goosen was unable to perform the essential functions of a field heavy equipment mechanic.”