Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

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

Barber v. Nabors Drilling U.S.A., Inc., 130 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. December 4, 1997)

Editor's Note: The original opinion issued on November 12, 1997 was withdrawn and replaced with this opinion. The Court changed language concerning its review of the jury's assessment of what are essential functions from a clear error standard to a highly deferential standard.

Keywords: ADA (qualified individual, essential functions; jury instructions, punitive damages)

Introduction: A jury awarded Jimmy Barber over $154,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $300,000. Nabors' motion for a new trial was denied. Nabors appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirms.

Facts: Barber worked on an oil drilling rig as a toolpusher. On March 1, 1993, he injured his back at work. He continued to work until June 28, 1993, when he requested time off to seek treatment. He eventually was released to return to light duty. Nabors advised Barber that he could not return to his former position unless he had a full medical release.

Law:

1. Nabors first argues that a reasonable jury could not have found for Barber because the work restrictions imposed by his own physician prevent him from performing some of the essential functions of his job.
2. However, the essential functions described by Nabors are emergency functions or functions that only may be required on occasion. Therefore, the Court refuses to second-guess the jury verdict because it could have found that the functions were not essential or that Barber could perform the specific functions. In either event, using a highly deferential standard, there was no error.
3. Nabors argues that the jury instructions were in error. The Fifth Circuit reviews the alleged errors and determines that there are no grounds for reversal.
4. In reviewing jury instructions, the appellant must demonstrate that the charge as a whole creates substantial and ineradicable doubt whether the jury has been properly guided in its deliberations. Also, even if the jury instructions were erroneous, the court will not reverse if it determines, based upon the entire record, that the challenged instruction could not have affected the outcome of the case.
5. With respect to the award of punitive damages, the Fifth Circuit reverses the award because the record is devoid of evidence that Nabors acted maliciously or with reckless indifference towards Barber's rights under the ADA. Click here to see actual case.