Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rehm v. Arctic Glacier West Point, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Iowa

July 18, 2018

JAMES REHM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARCTIC GLACIER WEST POINT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.

         A plaintiff appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to his employer on his disability discrimination claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

          Erin Patrick Lyons of Dutton, Braun, Staack & Hellman, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellant.

          Mark W. Thomas and Aaron W. Lindebak of Grefe & Sidney, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

          Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.

          BOWER, JUDGE.

         James Rehm appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Arctic Glacier West Point, Inc. (Arctic Glacier) on his disability discrimination claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). We find the district court did not err in finding Rehm did not present a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether he was disabled within the meaning of the ICRA. We affirm the district court's decision granting the employer's motion for summary judgment.

         I. Background Facts & Proceedings

         Rehm was employed at Arctic Glacier, a company that produces bags of ice. Rehm broke his wrist on March 27, 2015. After about six weeks, he returned to work without restrictions but found it difficult to complete some of his work duties due to pain in his wrist. These job duties included lifting twenty pound bags of ice and using a sledgehammer to break up ice. On August 20, 2015, Rehm was restricted to working forty hours per week. Rehm continued to experience pain when performing some job duties and spoke to his supervisor. The employer warned Rehm it believed he had engaged in insubordination because he had not performed all of his work duties and stated he needed written documentation of any restrictions. On November 13, 2015, he was restricted to lifting no more than ten pounds. Rehm was terminated from his employment on November 30, 2015. Rehm has since recovered from his broken wrist.

         Rehm instituted an action with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, alleging disability discrimination. He received an administrative release and filed an action against Arctic Glacier on July 28, 2016. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming a broken wrist did not constitute a disability under the terms of the ICRA, Iowa Code chapter 216 (2016).

         The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, finding Rehm had not shown he was disabled for purposes of the ICRA. The court found there was no genuine issue of material fact on the issue of whether Rehm's broken wrist substantially limited a major life activity. The court noted the injury was temporary and Rehm was not disqualified from a broad range of jobs due to the impairment. Rehm appeals the district court's decision.

         II. Standard of Review

         "We review district court summary judgment rulings for corrections of errors at law." McQuistion v. City of Clinton, 872 N.W.2d 817, 822 (Iowa 2015). "Summary judgment is properly granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Banwart v. 50th St. Sports, L.L.C., 910 N.W.2d 540, 545 (Iowa 2018). "Even if facts are undisputed, summary judgment is not proper if reasonable minds could draw from them different inferences and reach different conclusions." Goodpaster v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc., 849 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Iowa 2014).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.