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 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
