## Facts

- Janet Edwards, diagnosed with hepatitis C, was medically monitored and later tested with no detectable virus, though treated as chronic.
- Edwards applied for work at a nursing center operated by Heartway Corp. as a dietary aide and completed a questionnaire asking whether she was under a doctor’s care or taking medication; she answered “no.”
- Edwards was hired and later worked as a cook.
- After Edwards cut her hand at work, management learned she had hepatitis C and required a doctor’s release before she returned.
- Edwards obtained a physician’s clearance, but Heartway terminated her before she delivered it.
- When Edwards sought reinstatement, the administrator refused; the EEOC presented evidence he said she could not work in the kitchen because she had hepatitis C and that she was fired for lying on her application.
- The EEOC also presented evidence the administrator expressed fear of food contamination from Edwards’s blood and concern residents would leave if they learned of her condition.
- The EEOC sued under the ADA, alleging unlawful termination because Heartway regarded Edwards as disabled.
- A jury found for the EEOC on the “regarded as” discrimination claim and awarded back pay and $20,000 in compensatory damages.
- The district court removed punitive damages from the jury by granting Heartway judgment as a matter of law on that issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Heartway regarded Edwards as substantially limited in the major life activity of working (a class or broad range of jobs) and terminated her because of that perceived disability.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to consider punitive damages under the ADA, requiring proof Heartway acted with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the jury’s liability verdict and compensatory/back-pay awards.
- The court held the record permitted a reasonable inference Heartway viewed Edwards as unfit for food-service work generally, not merely a single job, based on fear of blood-borne transmission and customer reaction.
- The court rejected Heartway’s argument that the termination was solely for application falsification, concluding the jury could treat that explanation as pretext given timing, comments, and disregard of medical clearance.
- The court reversed the district court’s judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages.
- The court remanded for a new trial limited to punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Under the pre-2008 ADA, an employer “regards” an employee as disabled if it perceives an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity, including working in a class or broad range of jobs.
- Evidence that a decisionmaker believed an employee’s condition made her unfit for a category of work (e.g., food handling) can support a “regarded as” finding.
- On review of judgment as a matter of law, courts view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and do not reweigh credibility determinations made by the jury.
- Punitive damages under the ADA require proof the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference—knowledge that its conduct may violate federal law.
- A jury may infer reckless indifference from a decisionmaker’s awareness of ADA obligations combined with action based on stereotypes or fear rather than medical evidence.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that evidence of fear-driven exclusion from food-service work supported the jury’s finding that Heartway regarded Edwards as disabled and terminated her because of that perception, and it further held that the evidence warranted jury consideration of punitive damages, requiring a new punitive-damages trial on remand.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Heartway Corp., 466 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2006)