161073P.pdf   05/11/2018  Jerry  Faidley  v.  United Parcel Service
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1073
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, for the Court En Banc] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court did not err in 
   finding that the ability to work overtime was an essential function of 
   plaintiff's UPS package car driver job, and UPS did not violate the ADA or 
   the Iowa Civil Rights Act by refusing plaintiff's request for an 
   eight-hour day because that accommodation would have made him unqualified 
   to perform the essential job functions of a package car driver; plaintiff 
   was not qualified for the reassignment position of a feeder driver 
   position because he could not meet the essential job function of working 
   9.5 hours per day under his work restrictions, and UPS was not obligated 
   under the ADA to offer a position for which plaintiff was not qualified; 
   on this record, plaintiff's doctor's facially unambiguous restriction 
   letter established that plaintiff was not qualified to be reassigned as a 
   feeder driver; the panel's determination that UPS did not violate the ADA 
   when it refused to accommodate plaintiff's temporary restriction to 
   working four hours a day for five weeks at a combined loader-preloader 
   position after his doctor eliminated his permanent 8-hour per day 
   restriction is affirmed, as UPS was not obligated to reallocate the 
   essential functions of the combined positions and plaintiff could not 
   perform the essential functions of the job given his lifting restrictions; 
   UPS participated in the interactive process prescribed in the ADA 
   Procedural Compliance Manual, and no reasonable jury could find that UPS 
   acted in bad faith. Judge Murphy, with whom Chief Judge Smith and Judge 
   Kelly join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
  
161073P.pdf   04/04/2017  Jerry  Faidley  v.  United Parcel Service
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1073
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Kelly, Circuit Judge, and Montgomery, 
   District Judge] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court correctly 
   determined that plaintiff was not qualified to perform the essential job 
   functions of a delivery driver; however, the court erred by determining as 
   a matter of law that plaintiff was unable to perform the essential duties 
   of a feeder driver position as there was sufficient evidence to create a 
   genuine issue of material fact on plaintiff's claim that he was qualified; 
   it was sufficient for plaintiff to present evidence that the position 
   would be open in the near future to establish that a position was 
   available; defendant's decision to reject plaintiff's bids for full time 
   work was sufficient to show plaintiff suffered an adverse employment 
   action; with respect to plaintiff's claim for a later incident of alleged 
   discrimination, he failed to show he was qualified to perform the 
   essential duties of any available job; the record further showed that 
   defendant made a good faith effort to assist plaintiff in seeking an 
   accommodation, and defendant was entitled to summary judgment with respect 
   to this second claim. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in 
   part. Judge Montgomery, concurring in part and dissenting in part.