## Facts

- The EEOC sued on behalf of Laura Barrios, a long-term employee at DuPont’s LaPlace, Louisiana chemical plant, alleging ADA violations tied to a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) and her termination.
- Barrios had serious, long-standing mobility impairments that substantially limited walking; DuPont physicians imposed permanent restrictions (e.g., limited standing and walking, no extended hours, no stooping).
- DuPont transferred Barrios to a lab clerk position that was largely sedentary (copying and filing).
- DuPont later required Barrios to undergo an FCE, citing concerns about emergency evacuation at a hazardous chemical facility.
- After the FCE confirmed significant walking limitations, DuPont imposed restrictions effectively barring Barrios from walking on-site, placed her on disability status, and terminated her employment rather than returning her to the lab clerk role.
- A jury found DuPont liable under the ADA for discriminatory discharge/denial of reasonable accommodation and awarded back pay, front pay, and punitive damages; punitive damages were later reduced to the statutory cap.
- DuPont filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b)) and for a new trial or remittitur (Rule 59), challenging liability and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support that Barrios was disabled or “regarded as” disabled under the ADA.
2. Whether walking and emergency evacuation capability were essential functions of Barrios’s lab clerk position and whether DuPont failed to provide reasonable accommodation or could exclude her based on safety.
3. Whether ordering and relying on the FCE violated the ADA’s limits on medical examinations (job-related and consistent with business necessity).
4. Whether the jury’s back pay, front pay, and punitive damages awards were unsupported, excessive, or required reduction.

## Decision

- Denied DuPont’s Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability and on the medical-examination (FCE) theory.
- Denied DuPont’s Rule 59 motion for a new trial on liability and on compensatory damages.
- Upheld the jury’s back pay award of $91,000.
- Upheld the jury’s front pay award of $200,000 as supported by the evidentiary record.
- Upheld the punitive-damages finding but reduced the punitive damages amount to $300,000 under the statutory cap.

## Legal Principles

- Judgment as a matter of law is improper where a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant on the record; the court does not reweigh credibility or substitute its view for permissible inferences.
- Substantial limitation in walking can constitute an ADA disability; an employer’s medical restrictions and actions can support a “regarded as” finding when they reflect a belief the employee is broadly limited in walking.
- “Essential functions” require a job-specific inquiry grounded in the employee’s actual duties; generalized, plant-wide assertions about physical demands may be rejected when inconsistent with evidence of the position and past accommodations.
- A “direct threat” defense requires proof of a significant safety risk that cannot be reduced by reasonable accommodation.
- Employee medical examinations, including FCEs, must be job-related and consistent with business necessity; the jury may infer lack of business necessity where the employer long knew of the condition and lacks a concrete trigger for the exam.
- Back pay and front pay aim to make the plaintiff whole; factfinders may resolve conflicting evidence on work capacity, offsets (including disability benefits), and projected employment tenure.
- Punitive damages under the ADA require proof of malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights; statutory caps limit the recoverable amount.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the jury’s ADA verdict and most damages, concluding the evidence supported findings that DuPont regarded Barrios as disabled, overstated essential job functions and safety needs, and improperly used an FCE and termination rather than accommodation; it reduced punitive damages only to the statutory maximum.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 645 (E.D. La. 2005)