Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
261 F.3d 1026 (2001)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Steeltek, Inc. (Steeltek) (defendant) posed the following two questions on its employment application: (1) “Have you received Worker’s Compensation or Disability Income payments? If yes, describe,” and (2) “Have you physical defects which preclude you from performing certain jobs?” Both inquiries unquestionably violated the prohibition on pre-employment medical inquiries provided in the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Randy D. Griffin (plaintiff) applied for a job at Steeltek and answered the first question but not the second. Steeltek declined to hire Griffin, and he sued for damages under the ADA. Steeltek ceased using the prohibited questions as a result of the litigation. At trial, the jury concluded that Griffin suffered no injury from the illegal questions based on evidence that they played no part in the decision not to hire him. Rather, the hiring manager did not interview Griffin because he lacked the requisite experience, and a recently laid-off employee with experience was rehired instead. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Steeltek. Griffin appealed the trial court’s denial of several post-trial motions he filed, arguing that he was entitled to damages and attorney’s fees and costs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Seymour, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.