James C. Budd v. Adt Security Systems, Inc.

Eighth Circuit

James C. Budd v. Adt Security Systems, Inc.

103 F.3d 699, 6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 867, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33898, 1996 WL 741864

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 31, 1996

Docket96-1932WM

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 103 F.3d 699 (James C. Budd v. Adt Security Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James C. Budd v. Adt Security Systems, Inc., 103 F.3d 699, 6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 867, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33898, 1996 WL 741864 (8th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The plaintiff, James C. Budd, claims that the defendant, his former employer, ADT Security Systems, Inc., has violated the Act by refusing to allow plaintiff to return to his former job as a system-service technician installing alarm systems. The District Court 1 held, on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, that plaintiff was estopped to claim that he could perform the job in question, with or without reasonable accommodation, and that, in any case, plaintiffs evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his being qualified to perform the job. We agree and affirm.

The able opinion of the District Court thoroughly lays out the facts and discusses the law. We have little to add. It is sufficient to say that the plaintiff, in applying for social-security and disability-insurance benefits, both of which were granted, and both of which he is still, apparently, drawing, made representations about his own physical abilities that are completely at odds with the theory of his lawsuit. He clearly represented that he was not able to return to his former job, and he is, in effect, making this representation continuously, because he is drawing the benefits that were granted in reliance upon it. Moreover, even apart from any estoppel theory, it is clear as a matter of law on this record that plaintiff is not able to perform the essential functions of his former job, which was very strenuous, with or without any reasonable accommodation. The fact that the defendant has offered plaintiff other jobs, which he has turned down, does nothing but strengthen the defendant’s case.

The present appeal does not present any question sufficiently novel to justify more extended treatment. See Beauford v. Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, 831 F.2d 768 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 938, 108 S.Ct. 1116, 99 L.Ed.2d 277 (1988).

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Femando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an action under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The plaintiff, James C. Budd, claims that the defendant, his former employer, ADT Security Systems, Inc., has violated the Act by refusing to allow plaintiff to return to his former job as a system-service technician installing alarm systems. The District Court 1 held, on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, that plaintiff was estopped to claim that he could perform the job in question, with or without reasonable accommodation, and that, in any case, plaintiffs evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his being qualified to perform the job. We agree and affirm.

The able opinion of the District Court thoroughly lays out the facts and discusses the law. We have little to add. It is sufficient to say that the plaintiff, in applying for social-security and disability-insurance benefits, both of which were granted, and both of which he is still, apparently, drawing, made representations about his own physical abilities that are completely at odds with the theory of his lawsuit. He clearly represented that he was not able to return to his former job, and he is, in effect, making this representation continuously, because he is drawing the benefits that were granted in reliance upon it. Moreover, even apart from any estoppel theory, it is clear as a matter of law on this record that plaintiff is not able to perform the essential functions of his former job, which was very strenuous, with or without any reasonable accommodation. The fact that the defendant has offered plaintiff other jobs, which he has turned down, does nothing but strengthen the defendant’s case.

The present appeal does not present any question sufficiently novel to justify more extended treatment. See Beauford v. Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, 831 F.2d 768 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 938, 108 S.Ct. 1116, 99 L.Ed.2d 277 (1988).

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Femando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F.3d 699, 6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 867, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33898, 1996 WL 741864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-c-budd-v-adt-security-systems-inc-ca8-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack