Rehrs v. The Iams Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
486 F.3d 353 (2007)
- Written by Nan Futrell, JD
Facts
Beginning in 1997, Rehrs (plaintiff) worked for the Iams Company (defendant) as a warehouse technician. From 1997–1999, Rehrs worked a fixed daily shift from 4 p.m. until midnight. In 1999, Iams was acquired by Procter & Gamble (P&G), which instituted a new schedule of two 12-hour shifts for all warehouse technicians that rotated every two weeks, meaning Rehrs now worked alternating day and night shifts of 12 hours each. Rehrs, a Type I diabetic, worked this schedule from 2000 to early 2002, when he suffered a heart attack. Rehrs returned to work in August 2003, and in September 2003, Rehrs submitted a note from his doctor, requesting that P&G place him on a fixed, daytime schedule to help control his diabetes. P&G granted the request for 60 days, but then informed Rehrs the accommodation could not become permanent, because shift rotation was an essential job function. Rehrs sued P&G under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., alleging unlawful disability discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to P&G, based on its conclusion that even if Rehrs’s diabetes was a disability under the ADA, Rehrs was not protected by the statute, because he could not perform the rotating-shift schedule, which was an essential part of his job as a warehouse technician. Rehrs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,006 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.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,006 law school casebooks.
