Employment Law Matters : Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Ogletree Deakins Law Firm : Labor Law, Human Resources

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and parallel state statutes, an employer cannot take an adverse action against an employee because of that person’s disability or perceived disability. However, an employer is justified in taking such action if the action is based upon a legitimate business reason, and if that reason is not simply a pretext for discrimination. A Tennessee district court has held that firing an employee because of fear of potential violence by that individual is a “legitimate non-discriminatory reason” for an employee’s termination, in spite of the fact that the employee had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. Calandriello v. Tennessee Processing Ctr., M.D. Tenn., No. 3:08-1099, Dec. 15, 2009.

Robert Calandriello sued his former employer, Tennessee Processing Center (TPC) for disability discrimination under the state’s anti-discrimination statute. The company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court. The court’s decision was premised on the third step of the shifting burden analysis, which requires an employee to disprove the company’s “legitimate business reason” for an adverse employment action.

Beginning in 2005, Calandriello worked at TPC’s Nashville location, which processed business data on which U.S. government stock and wire transfers were based. Because of the nature of the business conducted, TPC operated under certain security protections including FBI record checks for employees, a gated facility, and retinal scans for employee access.

In September 2007, TPC issued a “final warning” to Calandriello after learning that Calandriello had used company equipment to modify a company poster by adding a photo of Charles Manson. During the disciplinary process, Calandriello acknowledged that he made a poor choice in displaying the poster, but informed TPC (for the first time) that he suffered from bi-polar disorder which, he said caused that lapse in judgment. Calandriello also argued that because he had not destroyed company property, threatened anyone, or caused financial loss to the company, he should be exempt from disciplinary action, because he was entitled to “accommodation” under the ADA.

In spite of that, Calandriello was fired after further investigation showed that he had viewed online images of violence, assault weapons, and serial killers on his company computer. TPC’s action was based on a “loss of confidence” in Calandriello, and a concern that Calandriell’s continued employment posed a risk of workplace violence. Calandriello admitted to viewing sites about assault weapons and serial killers, but argued that guns were a “constant conversation topic” in the workplace at TPC.

Nonetheless, the court found in favor of TPC, holding that “fear of potential violence is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for an adverse employment action,” including termination, and quoted a federal appellate court opinion that the ADA “does not require an employer to retain a potentially violent employee.” It further found that Calandriello was unable to provide evidence that the reason given by TPC for the termination was simply a pretext for discrimination. TPC was able to substantiate its position by citing a written company policy that specifically prohibited employees from visiting internet sites that are “known to contain or are suspected of containing objectionable matter” including “profane or otherwise inflammatory material.”

This case should not be viewed as a blank check for the discipline or termination of employees with bi-polar disorder. The deciding factors here included the high security workplace and the written company policies related to company computers. Further, the fact that the company was unaware of Calandriello’s impairment until after its initial disciplinary action supports its argument that the termination was based on “legitimate non-discriminatory” reasons. Employers should view issues related to medical and psychological impairments on a case-by-case basis to assure compliance with both state and federal laws.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 21, 2009, just in time for the holidays, and as part of the 2010 appropriations bill for the Defense Department (the Act), President Barack Obama signed into law an extension to the subsidy for COBRA created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The legislation extended the period during which involuntary terminations would trigger subsidy eligibility, as well as expanding the duration of the subsidy. Employers and plan administrators also will face new notice and administrative requirements to implement the subsidy extension on a retroactive basis. Below are a few of the highlights.

First, the Act expands the maximum subsidy period from nine months to 15 months, including individuals currently receiving subsidized COBRA coverage.

Next, the Act extends the period during which a COBRA-qualifying event resulting from an involuntary termination of employment can trigger eligibility for the subsidy, extending the end of that period from December 31, 2009 to February 28, 2010.

The Act resolves a thorny issue created by the language of the ARRA regarding eligibility for the subsidy. Originally, the ARRA required that both the qualifying event and the beginning of the COBRA coverage period occur on or before December 31, 2009, for an individual to be eligible for the subsidy. This meant that individuals whose employment terminated in December and coverage expired on December 31, but whose COBRA coverage commenced on January 1, would not have been eligible. The Act changes this by conditioning subsidy eligibility solely on the timing of the qualifying event, which is the event causing the loss of coverage. Assistance-eligible individuals who experience an involuntary termination (a qualifying event) on or before February 28, 2010 would be eligible for the subsidy (even if their COBRA coverage would not start until March).

The Act also protects individuals who, before the Act, exhausted their nine months of subsidized COBRA coverage and then did not continue coverage by paying full COBRA premiums. Under a transition period, those individuals would be able to pay those premiums retroactively if they do so by a certain date – the later of February 19, 2010, or 30 days from receipt of a new required notice.

For those assistance-eligible individuals who exhausted their nine-month subsidy but continued to pay the full COBRA premium in order to keep coverage in place, the amendment allows employers to apply the same refund or crediting rules that were in the ARRA.

Plan administrators will be required to issue a notice describing the new subsidy rules to all individuals who were or are assistance-eligible individuals on or after October 31, 2009, or who are terminated from employment on or after October 31, 2009. In addition, the Act requires special notice to those assistance-eligible individuals who either dropped COBRA or paid the full premium for it when their nine-month subsidy ended, explaining that they are now eligible either to reinstate their coverage retroactively at the subsidized rate or to receive a credit or refund if they paid more than the Act would have required.

The other terms and conditions of the initial COBRA subsidy will continue to apply (see Ogletree Deakins' April 2, 2009 E-Alert). Should you have any questions about this legislation or its impact on employers, contact the Ogletree Deakins attorney with whom you normally work or the Client Services Department at 866-287-2576 or via e-mail at clientservices@ogletreedeakins.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an unpublished opinion, the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an employee who requested a leave of absence to consult an orthopedic surgeon was unable to prove that the absence would allow him to perform the essential functions of his position. Therefore, the absence was not a "reasonable accommodation" for purposes of the ADA. Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 2d Cir., No. 09-1444, unpublished, 11/17/09.

George Graves worked as a paper inspector for Finch Pruyn & Company. Graves requested an unpaid leave of absence from his job to consult with a surgeon about a foot problem from which he suffered. When Graves subsequently was terminated from his employment, he sued the company for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Finch's motion for summary judgment was granted by the district court, which held that the leave sought by Graves was not a reasonable accommodation and, therefore, that Graves was unable to set forth the required prima facie case. On appeal, that decision was upheld by the Second Circuit.

Under the ADA a "reasonable accommodation" is something that enables a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of his job. An employer typically is required to engage in an interactive process with a disabled employee and to work with him to implement a reasonable accommodation, unless such accommodation creates an undue hardship for the company. In Grave's case, there was no dispute that immediately prior to the request for leave, Graves could not perform the essential functions of his job, which required standing for long periods of time and lifting and pushing large rolls of paper. His request for a leave of absence was for the specific purpose of consulting with a surgeon. However, the request included no assurance that such consultation would then allow Graves to be able to perform the essential functions of his job. In fact, a report from one of Graves doctors indicated that it was "unlikely" that Graves could return to his previous occupation after the contemplated surgery. Further, the same doctor provided a report that ultimately allowed Graves to qualify for a disability retirement. Based on all of this, the Court concluded that the evidence did not provide assurance that Graves' would ever be able to perform the essential functions of his job, even with the request two-week leave of absence. Graves therefore could not support the element of his prima facia case that required him to show that he was able to do the essential functions of his job with an accommodation.

The Court made an additional, and notable, point: that an employee may not rely on a company's failure to engage in the interactive process if he cannot also show that a reasonable accommodation actually exists at the time of the complained-of adverse action. Employers should not interpret this holding to mean that they can ignore the obligation to interact with an employee regarding a requested accommodation. Instead, an employer should recognize that before rejecting an employee's request for job modification, full and considered evaluation of the proposed "accommodation" should be done in order to determine whether such request will enable the individual to return to his or her essential functions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an unpublished opinion, the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an employee of the New York City Department of Education could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, because she could not prove herself to be “otherwise qualified” within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Rios v. Dept. of Education, 2d Cir., No. 08-1262-cv, unpublished, November 2, 2009.

Wilda Rios, an employee of the New York City Department of Education (DOE), alleged that her employment termination was based upon her disability, and that the employer’s claim that she was terminated for attendance policy violations was simply a pretext for that discrimination. When the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Education, Rios appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed the decision, finding that Rios’ frequent absences removed her from the protection of the ADA.

Discriminatory discharge claims under the ADA are reviewed under the McDonnell Douglas shifting burden analysis. That analysis requires the plaintiff first to set forth a prima facie case showing that he or she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA and is “otherwise qualified” to perform the essential functions of the job in spite of the disability, with or without reasonable accommodation. Next, the employer is required to proffer a “legitimate business reason” for its adverse employment action. The final burden shifts back to the plaintiff, who then must prove that the employer’s proffered reason is a pretext, and that the actual reason for the adverse action is discrimination.

In Rios’ case, there was documentary evidence that Rios “repeatedly failed to show up for work on time or at all for a variety of reasons, many of which were unrelated to her claimed disability.” In response to those absences, the DOE imposed certain disciplinary actions, and ultimately terminated Rios’ employment.

While Rios claimed that her firing was based upon her disability, the DOE argued that her attendance at work was an essential function of her position. The Court agreed with the employer, and specifically found that by imposing discipline for Rios’ excessive absences, the DOE demonstrated the essential nature of Rios’ attendance and punctuality to her job. Because Rios was unable to establish a regular attendance pattern, she was not “otherwise qualified” to fulfill one of the essential functions of the position, and therefore was unable to establish a prima facie case under the ADA. In addition, even if the Court had found that Rios’ prima facie case had been effectively established, the DOE’s motion for summary judgment would have been granted on the basis that Rios showed no actual evidence that the DOE’s legitimate business reason for Rios’ firing was simply a pretext for discrimination.

This case shows the importance of the consistent enforcement of an employer’s attendance policy (and documentation of an employee’s violation of that policy) to the defense of a claim of discrimination under the ADA. By implementing and enforcing such a policy, an employer indicates the essential nature of an employee’s attendance, and can use such information to underscore the legitimacy of disciplinary actions related to an employee’s violation of the same.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link