We recently reported on a case involving Hibbing Taconite and a deaf person who filed a claim of disability discrimination. This case is a good reminder that denial of summary judgment is not a decision on the merits. As recently reported, the claim of disability discrimination went forward against Hibbing Taconite in respect to James Edstrom, a deaf person, who had applied for a position as a truck driver/heavy equipment operator. In summary judgment, Hibbing Taconite’s defenses were found inadequate based primarily on the fact that they had only interviewed Edstrom after he had brought an action, and then rejected him for a position which he had performed with another mining company without exploring reasonable accommodations beyond which the former employer had done. At trial, Hibbing Taconite argued that Edstrom had admitted that he could not perform the essential functions of the job for which he applied, and that, if he had been hired, he would have posed a threat to the safety of other workers at Hibbing Taconite. After only two hours of deliberation; the jury found that the mining company did not discriminate against Edstrom. EEOC & Edstrom v. Hibbing Taconite Co. (Minn. D.C. 2010).