A Question of Ethics—Discrimination Based on Disability. Titan Distribution, Inc., employed Quintak, Inc., to run its tire mounting and distribution operation in Des Moines, Iowa. Robert Chalfant worked for Quintak as a second-shift supervisor at Titan. He suffered a heart attack in 1992 and underwent heart bypass surgery in 1997. He also had arthritis. In July 2002, Titan decided to terminate Quintak. Chalfant applied to work at Titan. On his application, he described himself as having a disibility. After a physical exam, Titan’s doctor concluded that Chalfant could work in his current capacity, and he was notified that he would be hired. Despite the notice, Nadis Barucic, a Titan employee, wrote “not pass px” at the top of Chalfant’s application, and he was not hired. He took a job with AMPCO Systems, a parking ramp management company. This work involved walking up to five miles a day and lifting more weight than he had at Titan. In September, Titan eliminated its second shift.

Chalfant filed a suit in a federal district court against Titan, in part, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Titan argued that the reason it had not hired Chalfant was not that he did not pass the physical, but no one—including Barucic—could explain why she had written “not pass px” on his application. Later, Titan claimed that Chalfant was not hired because the entire second shift was going to be eliminated.

[Chalfant v. Titan Distribution, Inc., 475 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2007)] (See pages 667–671.)

1. What must Chalfant establish to make his case under the ADA? Can he meet these requirements? Explain.

2. In employment-discrimination cases, punitive damages can be appropriate when an employer acts with malice or reckless indifference to an employee’s protected rights.

Would an award of punitive damages to Chalfant be appropriate in this case? Discuss.