## Facts

- John Christopher Shaver had nocturnal epilepsy and previously underwent cranial surgery that left him with a metal plate in his head.
- Shaver worked at a timber mill operated by Salem Wood Products Company, affiliated with Independent Stave Company.
- Shaver alleged coworkers and supervisors mocked his epilepsy and surgery, including calling him “platehead” and treating him as “stupid.”
- He claimed this conduct created a hostile work environment based on disability.
- Shaver was terminated; the employer asserted insubordination as the reason.
- After Shaver filed suit, he alleged the employer retaliated by providing negative job references to prospective employers, impairing his ability to obtain new employment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on Shaver’s ADA and Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) harassment and retaliation claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state workers’ compensation-related claim.
- Shaver appealed; the court of appeals reviewed summary judgment de novo and analyzed the MHRA claims on the same basis as the ADA claims.

## Issues

1. Whether disability-based hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the ADA and, if so, whether the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment.
2. Whether negative post-employment job references can constitute an adverse action for ADA/MHRA retaliation and whether the record presented a triable issue of retaliatory causation.

## Decision

- The court held that hostile work environment claims are actionable under the ADA.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on the ADA/MHRA hostile work environment claim because the alleged disability-based ridicule was not severe or pervasive enough under the governing standard.
- The court held that negative job references can qualify as adverse actions for ADA/MHRA retaliation.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the retaliation claim and remanded because a reasonable jury could find the negative references were given because of Shaver’s protected activity.

## Legal Principles

- The ADA permits hostile work environment claims based on disability, evaluated using a Title VII-style framework.
- To establish a hostile work environment, the plaintiff must show harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position.
- ADA/MHRA retaliation may be based on post-employment conduct; negative job references can be materially adverse if they would deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.
- On summary judgment, if the evidence permits a reasonable inference that adverse references were motivated by protected activity, the retaliation claim must proceed to trial.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit recognized ADA hostile work environment liability but concluded Shaver’s evidence did not meet the severe-or-pervasive threshold; it also held that negative job references can constitute actionable retaliation and remanded for trial on whether the employer’s references were motivated by Shaver’s protected activity.


Shaver v. Independent Stave Co., 350 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2003)