SOUTH BEND, Ind. — U.S. District Judge Damon R. Leichty granted summary judgment for Bimbo Bakeries Group USA on Tuesday, finding that plaintiff Bennie Len Bullock failed to prove he was disabled under the ADA.
Leichty wrote that while chronic back pain and lumbar spinal stenosis are physical impairments, the ADA requires more than a diagnosis. Bullock failed to show his condition substantially limited a major life activity or bodily function compared to the general population.
Bullock, hired by Bimbo in September 2022, requested an accommodation to work 8-hour shifts instead of the facility’s standard 12-hour shifts. Bimbo engaged in an interactive process but determined the request was not reasonable because the bakery operates on a 24-hour schedule with two 12-hour shifts and no one could cover the remaining four hours.
The court noted that Bullock’s physician certified that his condition did not substantially limit a major life activity and recommended only that work involving bending, lifting, and standing be limited to 8-hour shifts.
“Preventing someone from standing for a 12-hour stretch is one thing, but a condition that would permit that same individual to stand during an otherwise normal 8-hour workday could not be considered by a reasonable jury to be a substantial limitation on a major life activity,” Leichty wrote.
Bullock argued he was disabled because he could not lift more than 100 pounds and had to follow specific procedures to lift 50 pounds. The court held these limitations concerned unusually heavy lifting, not lifting generally, and did not establish a substantial limitation life activity of lifting.
The judge also rejected Bullock’s claim that he was substantially limited life activity of working. The court cited Seventh Circuit precedent stating that demonstrating a substantial limitation in performing aspects of a single specific job is not sufficient to establish that a person is substantially limited in working a class or broad range of jobs.
Bimbo provided Bullock with a form listing ten open positions at the Elkhart location. Bullock applied for two: production supervisor and sanitation technician. He was told he was not qualified for the supervisor role and did not apply for any other positions. He was terminated in April 2023.
Bullock’s response to the summary judgment motion violated local rules by failing to accompany a statement of undisputed material facts. The court treated Bimbo’s statement of undisputed facts as undisputed in lieu of striking Bullock’s submission.
The court also granted summary judgment on Bullock’s retaliation claim, which he abandoned in his response to the motion.