-------------------------

While a court cannot revisit the prima facie case after all the evidence is in at trial, it can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support each element of the claim -- including those elements that happen to be part of the prima facie case. This is an ADA action in which the plaintiff suffers from diabetes.

Collado v. United Parcel Service, Co., 419 F.3d 1143 (11th Cir. August 2, 2005) - This is an ADA action alleging discrimination because of a disability and retaliation. William Collado has been an insulin-dependent diabetic since he was fourteen years old. His ADA claims are related to changes in job duties (he still works for UPS). At trial, the jury found in Collado's favor and awarded $316,000. However, the district court granted UPS's motion for judgment as a matter of law because it found that Collado was not disabled under the ADA. On appeal, Collado argues that the district court erred by revisiting the elements of the prima facie case, which it is prohibited from doing after all the evidence is in at trial. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit explains that the rule that prevents inquiry into the prima facie case after all of the evidence is in, does not prevent inquiry into the existence of an element of the claim -- even if that element is also part of the prima facie case. Whether a person has a disability is an element of the discrimination claim; and the Court finds that Collado failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could have found that he was disabled with respect to the major life activity of eating (or any other major life activity). Similarly, Collado failed to present sufficient evidence of a record of a disability or that UPS regarded him as disabled. As an aside, the Court also points out that driving is not a major life activity. With respect to his retaliation claim, the Court finds that even if Collado was subjected to an adverse employment action, he failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that there was a causal connection between his protected activity and the adverse employment action. Therefore, the retaliation claim fails as well. The Court affirms the grant of the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Click here to see actual case.