The inability to perform a single, particular job like lifting does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. However, to demonstrate that Missouri-American regarded him as unable to perform a class of jobs, Wenzel emphasizes that there was no lifting requirement in the written job description and that a Missouri-American manager testified that his injury substantially impaired a major life activity. However, an employer may decide under the terms of the ADA that individuals with some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments to certain life tasks make a candidate less than ideally suited for a particular job and the position required Wenzel's position required heavy-lifting and working with a shovel, pickaxe, and jackhammer. Although his employer was in error when he believed Wenzel's inability to lift heavy items was permanent, employers are free to make decisions based upon mistaken evaluations and not be penalized so long as the decisions are not based in intentional discrimination.

Conclusion:

The courts concluded that Wenzel had suffered no adverse affects from the employment decision which meant that he had not met the terms of defining himself as 'discriminated against' under the terms of the ADA. After Wenzel...

The four-month delay returning to work after his second injury, when Wenzel submitted his second relief was not the result of retaliation. The company requested a second opinion, as was their right, and Wenzel delayed providing this second opinion, which delayed his return to work.
As Wenzel failed to make a prima facie case, the case was dismissed. An employee must demonstrate that the discrimination was the result of a materially adverse action that was "more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities," in other words there "must be a material change in employment status," such a reduction in title, salary, or benefits. The ADA was ruled as inapplicable to the situation, as Wenzel had not met the full, stipulated burden and thus the employer had no burden to meet.

Works Cited

Wenzel vs. The Missouri-American Water Company. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. February 14, 2005. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/042575P.pdf.