Bridges v. City of Bossier

¶5GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

¶6Plaintiff-appellant Cortez Bridges (Bridges) appeals the district court’s judgment, following a bench trial, denying his claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We affirm.

¶7Facts and Proceedings Below

¶8Bridges applied for a firefighter position in Bossier City, Louisiana (the City). After passing certain preliminary tests, he was directed to undergo a physical exam. On the medical history form, he revealed to Dr. Mark Wilson that he has a blood clotting disorder known as Factor IX Deficiency, a mild form of hemophilia. Bridges told Dr. Wilson that he had never suffered any serious complications from the blood disorder. After contacting Bridges’ family physician and his hematologist, Dr. Wilson recommended that the City reject Bridges’ application because of the extreme risk of severe trauma associated with being a firefighter. The City rejected Bridges because it feared his condition rendered him a danger to himself and others as a firefighter.

¶9Bridges sued the City under the ADA. In a bench trial before the district court, Bridges presented evidence that he has never suffered any severe complications because of the hemophilia. This is true even though he played competitive contact sports in high school, currently serves in the Louisiana National Guard, and is now employed as an emergency medical technician (EMT) at a local casino. According to Bridges, the City failed to conduct an individualized assessment of his ability to work as a firefighter, acting instead on “myths, fears, and stereotypes” about hemophilia.1 Bridges claims that, despite the fact that he could actually perform the job of firefighter, the City refused to hire him because it regarded him as being disabled. The City’s refusal to hire him as a firefighter also results in Bridges’ being ineligible to work for the City as an EMT or paramedic. In response, the City argues that, though it refused to hire Bridges because of his hemophilia, it did not regard him as having a “disability” as that term is defined under the ADA.

¶10The district court found that the City regarded Bridges only as being disqualified from jobs involving “routine exposure to extreme trauma” and that such employment constitutes a “narrow range of jobs.” Thus, the district court concluded that Bridges failed to prove that he was disabled under the ADA because the City did not regard him as having a substantially limiting impairment on his ability to work. Bridges appeals, and the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of Bridges’ appeal.

¶11*332Discussion

¶12This case presents mixed questions of law and fact, requiring varying standards of review. Reich v. Lancaster, 55 F.3d 1034, 1044-45 (5th Cir.1995). We review the district court’s factual findings only for clear error, while its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id.

¶13The ADA prohibits discrimination by an employer on the basis of a person’s disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112. Thus, one requirement for a plaintiff to prevail on an ADA claim is to establish that he has a disability. Rogers v. International Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir.1996). It is undisputed that Bridges suffers from a mild form of hemophilia and that the City refused to hire him as a firefighter because of this condition. What is in dispute is whether Bridges suffers from a “disability” as that term is defined under the ADA.

¶14The statutory definition of “disability” includes “being regarded as having [a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities].” See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C).2 One is regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment if the individual (1) has an impairment which is not substantially limiting but which the employer perceives as constituting a substantially limiting impairment; (2) has an impairment which is substantially limiting only because of the attitudes of others toward such an impairment; or (3) has no impairment at all but is regarded by the employer as having a substantially limiting impairment. See Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 727-28 n. 19 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2G )(1)-(3)). We analyze Bridges’ claim under the first definition of “regarded as” — that his impairment is not substantially limiting but that the City perceived it as such.3See Rogers, 87 F.3d at 758; Dutcher, 53 F.3d at 727 & n. 19 (citing definition set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(Z)(1)).

¶15Although the ADA does not define “substantially limits” or “major life activities,” the regulations promulgated by the EEOC “provide significant guidance.” Dutcher, 53 F.3d at 726. The EEOC regulations state that “[mjajor [l]ife [ajctivities means functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). Working is the only major life activity in which Bridges claims the City regarded him as substantially limited. For the major life activity of working, the EEOC regulations provide that

“[t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

¶16On appeal, Bridges argues that the district court erred by holding that the City regarded him as substantially limited in only a narrow range of jobs. The district court’s finding of the City’s perception — that Bridges’ hemophilia substantially limits him only in jobs involving “routine exposure to extreme trauma” — is a finding of fact subject to clearly erroneous review. We do not understand Bridges to argue that the district court’s finding of the City’s perception is clearly erroneous. Even if his argument is interpreted to so dispute this finding, there is *333ample record evidence to support it.4

¶17We next address the question of whether the district court erred in holding that the limitation as perceived by the City— that Bridges cannot perform any job in which he is routinely exposed to extreme trauma— substantially limits him only in a narrow range of jobs. This is a mixed question of law and fact. The underlying factual question is how many and which jobs involve routine exposure to extreme trauma. On appeal, Bridges lists the following jobs as involving routine exposure to extreme trauma: law enforcement, military service, EMT, paramedic, construction worker, manufacturing and machinery processing jobs, saw mill employees, quarry workers, and jobs in the iron and steel industry. The district court made no explicit findings of fact regarding which jobs, other than firefighting, did or did not involve routine exposure to extreme trauma. Nevertheless, we can rule out most of the jobs listed by Bridges because of a lack of record evidence. Bridges points to no record evidence that law enforcement personnel are routinely exposed to extreme trauma, and we find none. Neither does the record evidence support his contention that construction workers, manufacturing and machinery processing employees, saw mill or quarry workers, employees in the iron and steel industry, or military personnel are routinely exposed to extreme trauma.5 Nor does the record evidence mandate a finding *334that EMTs and paramedics are routinely exposed to extreme trauma.6

¶18The legal issue presented by the instant case is whether disqualification from jobs involving routine exposure to extreme trauma — such as firefighter — constitutes a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working. Because we agree with the district court that such jobs are merely a narrow range of jobs, we hold that one who is disqualified from holding such jobs is not disabled under the ADA.

¶19The parties focus their arguments on the EEOC regulations. Bridges first argues that the City’s perception would substantially limit him in a broad range of jobs. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The City argues that it regards him as limited in only a narrow range of jobs. It is clear that neither firefighters alone, nor even firefighters in conjunction with municipal EMTs and paramedics who must also serve as backup firefighters (see note 9, infra), constitutes a broad range of jobs of various classes. A “broad range” implies more than two job types. See 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630.2(j), App. (listing an allergy to a substance found in most high rise office buildings within the plaintiffs geographical area that makes it difficult to breathe as an example of a substantially limiting impairment on a broad range of jobs). This Court has favorably cited Daley v. Koch, 892 F.2d 212, 215 (2d Cir.1989),7 which held that a perceived impairment that prevented a plaintiff from becoming a New York City police officer affected only a “narrow range of jobs,” even though New York City alone employs over 27,000 police officers. See Chandler, 2 F.3d at 1392 & n. 29. Similarly, a limitation that prevents one from becoming a firefighter — or even a firefighter and associated municipal paramedic or EMT backup firefighter — also only affects a “narrow range of jobs.”

¶20It is an issue of first impression in this Circuit whether such jobs constitute a “class” of jobs under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).8 A class of jobs includes “jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area_” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(B). Bridges and amicus curiae argue that exclusion from one’s chosen field of employment is a substantial limitation on the ability to work because a chosen field is a “class of jobs.” There is some support for this position. The Fourth Circuit has suggested that a plaintiff whose impairment “foreclosed her generally from obtaining jobs in her field” would be substantially impaired. Gupton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 14 *335F.3d 203, 205 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 59, 130 L.Ed.2d 17 (1994). But this language was dicta because the plaintiff in Gupton was prevented from proving a substantial impairment by the fact that she was offered a similar position (highway utilities specialist) by the state in another office. Id.; see also Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1126 (11th Cir.1993) (assuming in dicta that fire department’s “no-beard rule” substantially limited the ability of people with a certain skin condition to work as firefighters); Forrisi v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 931, 935 (4th Cir.1986) (suggesting in dicta that an employer regards an employee as substantially impaired under the Rehabilitation Act if the impairment generally prevents employment in his chosen occupation of utility repairman); E.E. Black, Ltd. v. Marshall, 497 F.Supp. 1088, 1101 (D.Haw.1980) (asserting in dicta that if an applicant is disqualified from an entire field, such disqualification constitutes a substantial handicap to employment under the Rehabilitation Act).

¶21The Tenth Circuit addressed a similar question in Welsh v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 977 F.2d 1415, 1416-1420 (10th Cir.1992) (Rehabilitation Act ease). The Court in Welsh stated that the plaintiff failed to show that he was substantially limited in a major life activity merely because he could not work as a fireman. Id.We find Welsh persuasive: firefighters alone do not constitute a “class of jobs.”9See also Chandler, 2 F.3d at 1393; Daley v. Koch, 892 F.2d 212, 215-16 (2d Cir.1989); but see Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1125-27 (11th Cir.1993) (assuming in dicta, without discussing the issue, that those desiring to be firefighters would be substantially impaired in a major life activity if they were prevented from working as firefighters).

¶22Similarly, the Tenth Circuit has suggested that preemption from employment in one’s chosen field does not per se establish a substantial limitation on working. See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (1994) (applying Rehabilitation Act precedent that “working” as a major life activity “does not necessarily mean working at the job of one’s choice”); see also Welsh, 977 F.2d at 1418-19 (plaintiff not substantially limited where sensory deficit prevented him from becoming fireman); Daley, 892 F.2d at 215-16 (person not substantially limited in major life activity of working merely because he is prevented from working as a police officer); cf. Tudyman v. United Airlines, 608 F.Supp. 739, 745-46 (D.C.Cal.1984) (concluding that weight problem that prevents plaintiff from working as a flight attendant for particular airline does not substantially limit the major life activity of working).10 We find the approach of the Tenth Circuit closer to oür understanding of a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working. Thus, we *336hold that firefighting jobs — including firefighters and associated municipal paramedics or EMTs who must also serve as backup firefighters — is too narrow a field to describe a “class of jobs” under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).11

¶23Conclusion

¶24For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in favor of the City.

¶25AFFIRMED.