Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 95-60402
Summary Calendar.
Kevin OSWALT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SARA LEE CORPORATION, d/b/a Bryan Foods, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Feb. 6, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Kevin Oswalt, an employee of Bryan Foods, Inc., brought this action against the defendant
alleging claims of wrongful discharge in violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The district court granted the
defendant 's motion for summary judgment on both claims. A full recital of the pertinent facts is
included in the lower court's opinion. See Oswalt v. Sara Lee Corp., 889 F.Supp. 253, 255
(N.D.Miss.1995).
II. ANALYSIS
This court reviews a district court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Moore
v. Eli Lilly & Co., 990 F.2d 812, 815 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 467, 126
L.Ed.2d 419 (1993). Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant demonstrates the absence
of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Slaughter v.
Southern Talc Co., 949 F.2d 167, 170 (5th Cir.1991). Whether there exists a genuine issue of
material fact is determined by whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct.
2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

1. ADA Claim:
To sustain a claim of wrongful discharge under the ADA, Oswalt must be a person with a
"disability." The statutory definition of "disability" includes "a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more of the major life activities." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). According
to Oswalt, his physical impairment was his high blood pressure, and this impairment substantially
limited a major life activity when his doctor authorized him to miss work while he adjusted to
medication.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has set forth factors that should be
considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity. These
include (1) the nature and severity of the impairment; (2) the duration of the impairment; and (3)
the long term impact of the impairment. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2).
In this case, Oswalt has provided no evidence to show that either the high blood pressure or
the alleged side effects from the medication substantially limited his job. We agree with the district
court that "[h]igh blood pressure alone, without any evidence that it substantially affects one or more
major life activities, is insufficient to bring an employee within the protection of the ADA." Oswalt,
889 F.Supp. at 258. We do not imply that high blood pressure in general can never be a "disability,"
as defined by the statute. We hold only that Oswalt failed to provide any evidence that his high blood
pressure substantially limited a major life activity.
2. FMLA Claim:
The FMLA provides that an eligible employee shall be entitled to leave from work when he
has a "serious health condition" that makes him "unable to perform the functions of the position."
29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1). "Serious health condition" involves either inpatient care in a medical care
facility or continuing treatment by a health care provider. 29 U.S.C. § 2611(11).
According to Oswalt, his serious health condition included both his high blood pressure and
an unrelated case of food poisoning. The food poisoning required neither inpatient care nor
continued medical treatment and was therefore not a "serious health condition" within the meaning
of the statute. The high blood pressure, however, did apparently involve continued treatment and

therefore could be considered a "serious health condition."
Nevertheless, the period of work Oswalt missed allegedly due to his high blood pressure
medication was in July of 1993. The FMLA did not go into effect until August 5, 1993. 29 C.F.R.
§ 825.102. Any leave taken prior to the effective date is not protected by the FMLA. 29 C.F.R. §
825.103(a).
The district court's granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is therefore
AFFIRMED as to both the ADA and the FMLA claims.