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

Earlier this year, and in a case of first impression, the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an employee’s claim that her employer violated the ADA by refusing to change her work shift after she reported commuting difficulties based upon a visual impairment that made it difficult for her to drive at night. Now, in an unpublished opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a similar decision. In that case, the Court reversed a decision in favor of an employer, allowing an individual’s claim to go to trial on the issue of whether the company failed to accommodate the employee’s visual impairment when it refused to modify her work schedule to daylight only hours. Livingston v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., 9th Circ., 08-35597, July 21, 2010.

Michelle Livingston began working for Fred Meyer Stores (Meyer) as a wine steward in April 2005. Livingston has been diagnosed with “depth perception difficulties under low light conditions,” which makes it difficult for her to safely drive or walk outside after dark. In the Fall of 2005, Livingston asked for, and was granted, a modified schedule to allow her to leave work during daylight hours. During that time, Livingston helped increase the store’s wine sales and improve its sales ranking. However, when she again asked for the modified schedule in the Fall of 2006, Meyer refused the request, and ultimately fired Livingston when she refused to work her scheduled shift.

Livingston sued the company, alleging that it failed to accommodate her and then retaliated against her, both in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that Livingston did not have a disability because her vision impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity, and that even if Livingston was disabled, a company’s duty to accommodate did not extend to “commute-related limitations.” The Ninth Circuit disagreed, reversing and remanding the case for trial.

A person is substantially limited in a major life activity if she is “significantly restricted” as to the condition, manner or duration under which she can perform that activity, when compared to the average person. Livingston’s impairment prevents her from safely driving or walking at night, when the average person is able to see well enough to do both. The Court held that on that basis, Livingston raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether she is disabled under the ADA in the major life activity of “seeing.”

The Court then specifically addressed the lower court’s finding that the duty to accommodate does not extend to commute-related limitations. It pointed out that the ADA contemplates that employers may need to make reasonable shift changes in order to accommodate an employee’s disability-related difficulties in commuting to work and that, therefore, Meyer had a duty to accommodate Livingston’s inability to finish her scheduled shift, so long as such accommodation did not create an undue hardship for the company. Because Meyer had not suffered a hardship when it modified Livingston’s schedule in 2005 – indeed, wine sales increased with Livingston’s help during that period – Livingston is entitled to allow a jury to decide whether Meyer’s failure to accommodate her request in 2006 was a violation of the ADA.

The Court further determined that Livingston’s failure to work her scheduled shift stemmed from her disability, and that conduct “resulting from a disability” is considered to be part of the disability, rather than a separate basis for termination. Therefore, the Court held, Livingston’s claim that she was terminated “because of her disability” should be decided by a jury.

In this case, there was no evidence that Meyer asked for any additional information or engaged in any dialogue with Livingston before refusing her request in 2006, and then terminating her employment. The absence of such evidence created the basis for the Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s decision in Meyer’s favor. Employers are required to engage in an interactive process in good faith when an employee asks for an accommodation of a disability. That failure can result in liability under the ADA if such reasonable accommodation is possible and appropriate.
 

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act defines a disabled individual as a person who suffers from a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or has a record of such impairment, or is being regarded as having such impairment. The “regarded as” provision was established to combat erroneous perceptions that might work to the disadvantage of individuals with impairments that might not rise to the level of an actual disability. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment in favor of an employer who discharged an individual after that person’s physician found that she was not “fit for duty” as an emergency dispatcher. Wisbey v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska, 8th Circ., No. 09-2100, July 6, 2010. There, the court held that if an action taken by an employer is based upon the recommendation of physicians, then it is not based on myths or stereotypes about impaired individuals, and cannot then establish a violation of the “regarded as” provision of the ADA.

Charlene Wisbey began working as an emergency dispatcher for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska in 1979, and successfully held that position until early in 2007. The position requires dispatchers to “think and act quickly and calmly in emergency situations,” and to “function accurately while working under considerable pressure.

On February 27, 2007, Wisbey applied for intermittent FMLA leave on the basis of depression and anxiety. Her FMLA application stated that she had a serious health condition that rendered her unable to perform the essential functions of her job, and was supported by a medical certification from her physician saying that Wisbey suffered from recurring cycle depression and anxiety that interfered with her sleep, energy, motivation, and concentration. The certification included the fact that Wisbey would need to take time off work on an intermittent basis for “6 months or longer.”

In response to the doctor’s evaluation of Wisbey, the City asked Wisbey to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination with a psychiatrist. During her examination, Wisbey described her battle with depression and stated that the emergency nature of her job worsened her condition. After the exam, the psychiatrist submitted a report that stated that Wisbey was not able to fulfill the duties set forth in her job description. The City ultimately terminated Wisbey’s employment, based upon the findings during the fitness-for-duty examination. Wisbey filed suit that included an allegation that her termination was a violation of the ADA. The lower court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Eighth Circuit.

Because Wisbey conceded that she was not have a disability or a substantially limiting impairment, she brought her claim under the “regarded as” provision of the ADA, arguing that the City perceived her as disabled and fired her because of that. However, in order for an employee to be regarded as disabled, an employer must mistakenly believe that an actual impairment substantially limits that person’s ability to work. Wisbey’s employment was terminated when she was found by a medical provider not to have been fit for duty as an emergency dispatcher. Therefore, the City did not “mistakenly” belive that Wisbey had an impairment that substantially limited her ability to work – she really was unable to do her job due to her condition. Further, while Wisbey argued that the fitness-for-duty exam itself was a violation of the ADA, that law allows employers to require a medical exam if such exam is “shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The dispatcher job required an ability to focus and concentrate at all times. Wisbey’s own statements regarding her inability to do that was sufficient business justification for the City to ask for an examination to determine whether she could safely continue in that job.

While this decision might seem like a semantic one, it is critical to employers. This case underscores the fact that employers are permitted to use reasonable means to determine whether an employee’s troubling behavior or behavior-related job difficulties limit that person’s ability to do his or her job, and that such reasonable means do not justify an ADA claim. Fitness-for-duty exams typically have been considered by courts to be a reasonable means of making that determination. The reasonableness of an exam will be underscored when the employer can articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to question the employee’s ability to perform his or her duties.
 

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

In an unusual case of first impression, the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under certain circumstances, the ADA may obligate an employer to accommodate an employee’s disability-related difficulties in getting to work. In that case, the Court reversed summary judgment in favor of an employer and held that changing a part-time employee’s schedule to day shift – because her monocular vision made it dangerous for her to drive at night – could be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Colwell v. Rite Aid Corporation, 3d Circ., No. 08-4675, April 8, 2010.

In April 2005, Jeanette Colwell began employment as a part-time retail clerk at a Rite Aid store in Old Forge, Pennsylvania, generally working weekdays from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. A few months after she began working there, Colwell was diagnosed with “retinal vein occlusion and glaucoma,” which eventually left her blind in one eye. In September 2005, Colwell informed her supervisor that the partial blindness made the drive to work at night dangerous and difficult for her, and asked to be switched to day (9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) shift so that she could drive to work safely. Public transportation was not an option, because the buses stopped running at 6:00 p.m. in that area. Colwell was told her shift would not be changed because it “wouldn’t be fair” to the other employees. At that point, Colwell began to rely on relatives to drive her to work, even though she said it was a “hardship” for her family to do it.

On October 12, 2005, after a number of unsuccessful attempts to have her shift changed to permanent day shift, Colwell wrote a letter of resignation to Rite Aid that stated that she felt that she had “not been given fair treatment.” Rite Aid never responded to Colwell’s note. A few months after leaving her position with Rite Aid, Colwell filed a lawsuit that included a claim that the company had failed to accommodate her disability by refusing to move her to the day shift.

The district court granted summary judgment to Rite Aid on Colwell’s failure-to-accommodate claim, on the basis that Colwell “did not need an accommodation to perform her job once she arrived at work.” The lower court found that the accommodation requested by Colwell “had nothing to do with the work environment or the manner and circumstances under which she performed her work,” and that the ADA only covers barriers “that exist inside the workplace.”

The Third Circuit reversed that decision, disagreeing with Rite Aid’s position that Colwell’s difficulties amounted to a “commuting problem unrelated to the workplace.” Instead, the Court found that the reach of the ADA is not limited in that way, and that changing Colwell’s work schedule to day shift was, in fact, the type of accommodation contemplated by the ADA. The Court pointed to language within the ADA in which the term “reasonable accommodation” is defined to specifically include “modified work schedules,” and that what Colwell was requesting was, in essence, a schedule change. The Court held that “under certain circumstances the ADA can obligate an employer to accommodate an employee’s disability-related difficulties in getting to work, if reasonable.” Because Colwell’s requested accommodation was a change in workplace condition that was entirely within the company’s control, and would have allowed Colwell to get to work to perform her job, the Court found that the shift change could be viewed as a reasonable accommodation.

Although in this case, the Court held that the ADA contemplates that an employer may need to modify an employee’s work schedule to accommodate that individual’s disability-related difficulties in getting to work, the employer is not precluded from asserting a defense that the re-scheduling may create an “undue hardship” or financial burden if, in fact, it does. This case underscores the need for a full evaluation of an individual’s particular medical impairment to determine what aspects of employment are affected, the benefit of participating in the interactive process required under the ADA, and the need to review the employee’s request for accommodation in the broadest context possible to determine whether or not the request will assist the employee in the performance of his or her job. Because this decision seems to expand employers’ obligations with respect to “reasonable accommodation,” it is worth following to see whether other courts of appeal rule consistently with the case.
 

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

The 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, consistently with the Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, that the side effects of medication may render an individual “disabled” for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though the underlying condition for which the medication was prescribed does not. Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 3d Circ., No. 08-4684, April 12, 2010.

Ed Sulima was employed by defense contractor Defense Support Services, LLC (known as “DS2”), and in 2005, was assigned to work as an electronics technician at Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania. Sulima, who has been diagnosed as morbidly obese and who suffers from sleep apnea, was taking a prescription weight-loss medication at that time. As a result of side effects related to the medication, Sulima took numerous and extended bathroom breaks during the workday. When Sulima’s supervisors asked him about the breaks, Sulima explained the side effects of his medication, and said he would ask his doctors whether a different prescription was available with fewer side effects. However, Sulima continued to take long bathroom breaks, and Tobyhanna informed him that he would be transferred out of his work group.

After being informed of the transfer plans, Sulima brought a note from his doctor which stated that the medication was being changed and the breaks would be less frequent. Nevertheless, Tobyhanna decided to move Sulima out of his work group. No other similar jobs were available; Sulima accepted a “voluntary” layoff on December 12, 2005, and found employment elsewhere. He then sued both DS2 and Tobyhanna under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, arguing that the two companies were his “joint employer” and that he had been laid of due to a disability or perceived disability. The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants, finding that Tobyhanna was not Sulima’s joint employer, and that Sulima had failed to raise a triable issue of fact against DS2 under the ADA.

The Third Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, holding that although the adverse side effects of Sulima’s medication could have caused an impairment rising to the level of a “disability” under the ADA, that category of disability is subject to certain limitations. Consistent with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Christian v. St. Anthony Med. Ctr., 117 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997), the Third Circuit held that an impairment caused by the side effects of a prescribed medication may constitute a disability if the plaintiff can show that the medication is required “in the prudent judgment of the medical profession” and that there is not an available alternative that is equally effective but that lacks disabling side effects.

In this case, Sulima could not show that the medication was required in the prudent judgment of the medical profession, based on the fact that when Sulima’s doctor was informed of the adverse side effects, he simply told Sulima to stop taking that medication. In addition, there was no evidence to show that the medication being prescribed was the only effective treatment for Sulima, and there was no evidence that any other treatments would have caused the same side effects. Therefore, Sulima did not demonstrate that the medication’s side effects created a “disability” under the ADA. The Court further found that Sulima did not allege facts sufficient to show that DS2 regarded him as disabled within the meaning of the ADA, or that his request for bathroom breaks was a protected activity that led to retaliation by the company.

Employers should not confuse the question of side-effects-as-a-disability with the general issue of “mitigating measures.” One of the specific purposes of the amendments to the ADA, effective in January 2009, is that the question of whether an impairment is “substantially limiting” under the ADA must be judged “without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures,” which might include mediations. For cases in which an individual’s medication ameliorates or erases the limitations of a physical or mental disability, an analysis of whether that person is disabled must be made without reference to the medication’s effects. However, that provision does not include situations, like Sulima’s, in which a plaintiff is claiming disability only as a result of the side effects of medical treatment for a health condition that, standing alone, does not constitute a disability. Here, the medication is the issue, and must be taken into account under the standard employed by the Third Circuit.
 

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

A medical intern who misdiagnosed patients (including mistakenly identifying a patient as deceased), prescribed inappropriate medications or incorrect dosages, and who was “extremely argumentative” with his supervisors and co-workers was unable to perform the essential functions of his job and therefore, according to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was not a qualified individual with a disability for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shin v. Univ. of Maryland Medical System Corporation, 4th Circ., No. 09-1126, March 11, 2010.

Frank Shin, M.D., began a medical internship with the University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (UMMSC) in June of 2006. He initially performed his duties in a satisfactory manner, scoring 8 out of 10 for overall competence. However, after the first month, Dr. Shin’s scores began to fall, and by August, his overall rating was 3 out of 10. Further, at that point, Shin had to be “shadowed heavily” by resident doctors, in order to prevent medical errors. Shin’s workload subsequently was decreased to three patients, but support of other residents was still necessary.

Shin’s falling performance ratings prompted a face-to-face meeting with his supervisor to address the issues. At that meeting, an action plan was developed, further reducing Shin’s patient load to two, and requiring him to interact frequently with others who supported him. When after two weeks, Shin’s performance deteriorated further, he was urged to contact the Employee Assistance Program. On September 1, 2006, Shin was put on probation, and was required to meet certain criteria to remain in the internship program. Shin’s overall competence scores failed to improve during probation, with one of his supervising doctors noting that Shin was “should no longer be allowed to continue in a direct patient care role.”

UMMSC made assistance available to Shin by allowing him to see fewer patients with less complex medical issues, by asking residents to help with Shin’s workload, and by excusing Shin from participating in certain internship program requirements. Despite this assistance, Shin continued to have problems and ultimately was diagnosed with ADD with “significant impairment in visual-spatial reasoning and visual memory.” Although Shin sought expert help, in March 2007, his own doctor determined that Shin had reached maximum medical improvement, but was unfit to return to work as an intern. UMMSC then terminated Shin’s employment. That termination was upheld after an internal appeal procedure held in June 2007.

Dr. Shin ultimately filed a lawsuit against UMMSC and Dr. Wolfsthal under the ADA, alleging discriminatory discharge, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. That decision was upheld by the Fourth Circuit. (Note that the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case under the “old” ADA, because the ADA Amendments Act, which took effect on January 1, 2009, was not applied retroactively.)

For both wrongful termination and failure to accommodate claims, a plaintiff must establish that he or she was a “qualified individual with a disability” in order to be eligible for the protections offered under the ADA. That Act defines a “qualified” individual as someone with a disability who, “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Therefore, in order to survive a motion for summary judgment, Shin had to show not only that he was disabled, but that he qualified for the protections of the ADA.

To prove that he was qualified, Shin had to show that he was able to fulfil the essential functions of his job. Those essential functions, in essence, were “to provide competent medical care to patients with efficiency and reasonable autonomy.” The available evidence and testimony clearly indicated various problems and concerns related to Shin’s performance of those functions. The Court held that Shin was unable to perform the essential functions of his job and, therefore, that he was not qualified to bring a lawsuit under the ADA. The Court went a step further, and addressed Shin’s claim that he would have been “qualified” had UMMSC provided certain requested accommodation, including a permanent reduction in the number of patients for whom Shin was responsible. According to the Court, the ADA does not require an employer to assign an employee to “permanent light duty” or to reallocate job duties in order to change the essential functions of a job. On that basis, the Court held that no reasonable jury could conclude that a reduced work load was a reasonable accommodation under these facts.

According to the Fourth Circuit, Dr. Shin was not a qualified individual with a disability for purposes of the ADA - because he was not able to perform the essential function of his job - and his requested accommodations were unreasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, Shin was unable to support his claims under the ADA. With many hospital systems moving to an “employment” model for physicians, it is critically important that hospital administrators and managers understand the employment-law implications of actions involving individuals in protected categories, and understand that ADA claims typically must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
 

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against disabled individuals. To that end, the Act includes a provision that, prior to an actual offer of employment, an employer “shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.” The only inquiry that can be made is whether the applicant is able to perform job-related functions. In a case of first impression, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a non-disabled employee can sue an employer for prohibited medical inquiry under the ADA. Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc., 11th Cir., No. 08-16656, Jan. 11, 2010.

John Harrison was assigned as a temporary employee with Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc. (BEHI) in 2005, working to repair and test electronic boards. At that time, if a BEHI supervisor believed that a temporary employee would meet the company’s needs, he could invite that individual to submit an application for permanent employment, which required undergoing a drug test and background screening.

In May 2005, Harrison submitted an employment application to BEHI at the suggestion of his supervisor, Don Anthony, and underwent the required drug screening and background check. At that point, Harrison had never been informed of any performance deficiencies or problems with his work attitude. Harrison’s drug screening came back positive which, under BEHI’s policy, required review by a Medical Review Officer (MRO). Anthony was contacted by BEHI’s HR department and was asked to “send [Harrison] her way.” Although HR did not tell Anthony about the positive drug test, Anthony discovered that information on his own, and informed Harrison that the test had come back positive for barbiturates. Harrison stated that he had a prescription for the drug, and Anthony asked him to produce it. Anthony immediately called the MRO and passed the phone to Harrison. Anthony remained in the room while Harrison answered a series of questions from the MRO, explaining that he had been diagnosed with epilepsy at age two, and took barbiturates to control the effects of that disease.

Shortly afterward, Harrison was informed by the MRO that his drug test had been cleared. However, Anthony told HR not to prepare an offer letter for Harrison. He further asked the temporary agency not to return Harrison to BEHI, stating that Harrison had “performance and attitude problems.” Harrison immediately was fired from the agency.

Harrison filed a lawsuit against BEHI under the ADA, alleging that the company had engaged in improper medical inquiry. BEHI moved for summary judgment which was granted by the district court. That decision was reversed by the 11th Circuit on appeal. The primary basis for the reversal was the appellate court’s answer to the question of whether a non-disabled individual can state a private cause of action for a prohibited medical inquiry under the ADA. (The EEOC had determined that Harrison’s epilepsy did not rise to the level of “disability” under the ADA. Although the 11th Circuit had not previously addressed that issue, it held – consistently with sister circuits which have specifically addressed that question – that the ADA precludes inquiries with respect to any applicant who has not yet received a job offer, whether or not the individual is disabled under the ADA.

This case raises an interesting issue. The ADA specifically recognizes an exemption for pre-employment drug tests (“a test to determine the illegal use of drugs shall not be considered a medical examination”), and allows an employer to validate the test results by asking about lawful drug use or possible explanations for the positive result other than illegal use of drugs. However, as this case makes clear, disability-related questions are prohibited. In fact, the Court in this case quotes the legislative history of the ADA to point out that the drug-test exemption “should not conflict with the right of individuals who take drugs under medical supervision not to disclose their medical condition before a conditional offer of employment has been given.” Therefore, while an employer may conduct follow-up questions in response to a positive drug test, there are specific limitations on the types of information that can be elicited by someone other than a medical officer. While BEHI’s procedure to have an MRO conduct follow-up questioning may have been consistent with the ADA, Anthony’s presence during Harrison’s responses and revelation of his medical condition was held by this Court to preclude summary judgment in favor of the company.
 

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

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

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

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first major federal statute to focus on the rights of individuals with medical impairments. Section 504 of the Act creates a private right of action for individuals claiming to have been discriminated against in any “program or activity” receiving federal financial assistance. Courts have included federally funded employment as one such “program.”

Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act have incorporated certain standards and remedies from other civil rights laws, and specifically have incorporated the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act that determine whether employment discrimination has occurred. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed an issue on which appellate courts are divided, and has held that unlike the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act protects independent contractors as well as employees. Fleming v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, 9th Cir., No. 07-16427, 11/19/09.

Dr. Lester Fleming entered into a contract in May of 2005 to provide anesthesiology services to Yuma Regional Medical Center in Yuma, Arizona. Prior to beginning work in November of that year, Fleming was asked – and refused – to sign an addendum to his employment contract that would have precluded a schedule that accommodated Fleming’s sickle cell anemia. Based on that refusal, Fleming’s employment contract was cancelled. Fleming sued Yuma for breach of contract and for violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Yuma, ruling that Fleming was an independent contractor and, as such, was not protected from disability discrimination by the Rehabilitation Act. Fleming did not dispute his independent contractor status, but appealed the determination related to whether he was covered under the Act.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, ruling consistently with a prior Tenth Circuit decision that Section 504 incorporates only the ADA’s standards for what conduct violates the Act, and not the definition of who is covered by the protections of the Act. The Court based its determination on the fact that the Rehab Act is broader than the ADA, covering any “otherwise qualified individual” who has been excluded from a program receiving federal funds, and not just employees. Further, the programs covered under Section 504 are all such operations, not just employment, whereas the ADA is limited to the employer-employee relationship. Because Congress did not use general language when it referred to the ADA in Section 504, and did not restrict the scope of the Act to employment, the Ninth Circuit was hesitant to “reduce the express scope of the Rehabilitation Act by wholesale adoption of definitions from another Act.”

The Ninth Circuit’s decision puts it in direct conflict with the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, each of which previously has held that Section 504 does incorporate the ADA’s employer-employee relationship requirement into the Rehabilitation Act. While the Ninth Circuit’s opinion spells out the rationale for its divergence from these decisions, there still exists a major split in the Circuits on the issue, creating an issue of concern for employers and their attorneys in the remaining circuits, and one which they will be following until the issue is addressed, if ever, by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, employers should be aware of this decision, and should take it into account when making decisions related to employees and independent contractors with medical impairments.

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

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a teacher’s statements on behalf of disabled students were “protected activity” under the ADA, and that the teacher had standing to sue for retaliation under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Barker v. Riverside County Office of Education, 9th Cir., No. 07-56313, Oct. 23, 2009.

Susan Lee Barker was hired as a Resource Specialist Program teacher with the Riverside County Office of Education in California in 2002. As early as 2003, Baker began to express her concerns to the County regarding its special education services for students with disabilities, and complained that the services did not comply with state or federal law. In 2005, Barker and a co-worker filed a lawsuit with the federal Department of Education’s Office related to those issues.

Barker resigned on August 1, 2006, stating that her working conditions had become intolerable after she filed the 2005 complaint. She subsequently filed a federal court retaliation claim under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that she was constructively discharges by being excluded from meetings, that her caseload was reduced, and that she was refused certain work, all because of her support of the students and complaints on their behalf. The district court granted the County’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that Barker lacked standing to sue for retaliation under either of the two statutes.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act include a broad anti-retaliation provision that shield’s “any individual” who is harmed after attempting to protect the rights of the disabled. The County argued that Barker could not sue because she was not a “qualified individual with a disability” and that she had no “close relationship” to the disabled students. However, the Ninth Circuit specifically found that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act grants standing to non-disabled people who are retaliated against for attempting to protect the rights of the disabled, as does Title II (the “public accommodation” provision) of the ADA.

The interesting issue in this case is that the lower court automatically analyzed the case under Title I (the “non-discrimination in employment” provision) of the ADA, because Barker was suing her employer. However, Barker’s claim addressed the County’s relationship with the students, and was appropriately brought under Title II. Based on this case, public employers should carefully analyze issues brought by employees regarding individuals with disabilities, and should be aware that adverse actions taken against such employees could have implications under the ADA or the Rehab Act.
 

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

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers and employees are required to engage in an interactive process with respect to a disabled employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation. In cases of psychological disability - depression, for example - necessary accommodations may be non-obvious to the employer. In those cases, courts have held that in order to trigger an employer’s obligation to provide accommodation, a disabled employee must make the employer aware of any non-obvious, medically necessary accommodations by supplying corroborating evidence, such as a doctor’s note or statement. Recently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a case, and found that a school failed to engage in the required interactive process after a teacher provided a doctor’s statement that linked the teacher’s Seasonal Affective Disorder depression to the lack of windows in her classroom. Ekstrand v. Sch. Dist. of Somerset, 7th Cir., No. 09-1853, Oct. 6, 2009.

Renae Ekstrand taught kindergarten from 2000 to 2005 at Somerset Elementary School in Wisconsin. In 2005, Ekstrand’s request to be transferred to teach first grade was granted; she was assigned to a classroom that lacked exterior windows. At that time, Ekstrand informed the principal that she suffered from Seasonal Affective Disorder (“SAD”), a form of depression, and would have difficulties teaching without access to natural light. While two alternate rooms were available, both with windows, no transfer to either of those rooms was made. During the initial weeks of the 2005 school year, Ekstrand’s health declined, and she continued to ask for a room with access to exterior windows, which was denied. However, during that same time, the school did address Ekstrand’s requests related to other work area issues, including inadequate ventilation and the lack of various educational necessities, like bulletin boards and a locking cabinet. Ekstrand’s health problems worsened, and on October 17, her doctor placed her on medication and advised a leave of absence for the remainder of the term.

During the following months, Ekstrand continued to ask for the room change, advising the school that she would be able to return under that condition. On November 28, 2005, Ekstrand’s psychologist notified the school district, through its representative, of the importance of natural light for individuals with a history of SAD, and opined that Ekstrand’s depression was a direct result of her transfer to a room lacking access to natural light. Still, the school district did not make the requested room change, and Ekstrand ultimately left her employment at Somerset and began teaching elsewhere.

In 2008, Ekstrand sued the school district, alleging failure to accommodate, as well as constructive discharge. A federal district court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment on both claims, holding that the school engaged in the interactive process when it addressed Ekstrand’s other work-related issues, and that the school’s conduct did not amount to a constructive discharge. On appeal, the 7th Circuit upheld dismissal of the discharge claim, but reversed the ADA dismissal. The reversal was based primarily on the fact that once it was aware of natural light’s medical necessity to Ekstrand (after being informed by Ekstrand herself that she was willing and able to return to work in a classroom with access to such light), the school district was obligated to provide that requested accommodation, unless it could show that the request would impose an “undue hardship” for the school. After reviewing the proffered evidence related to the proposed classroom change, the Court determined that there would be “little hardship” related to the switch, and reversed the dismissal of Ekstrand’s claim on that basis.

While the ADA is focused primarily on the interests of disabled employees, the Act’s “reasonableness” standard regarding the interactive process protects the interests of employers by allowing them to show that a requested accommodation would create an undue hardship. However, not every non-zero cost to an employer will be viewed by the courts as “undue” hardship. In this case, the evidence produced by the school indicated that the cost and disruption associated with the classroom change would have been “modest,” leading the Court to find that once the school was informed by the doctor that Ekstrand’s depression was cause by lack of natural light, an obligation was created that either required the school to make the change, or prove that the hardship generated by the change would be significant. Neither occurred, and Ekstrand’s case will go forward on the issue of whether the school failed in its duty to accommodate. Employers should recognize when an accommodation has been requested, full and considered evaluation of the costs and effects should be done promptly, and documentation of those efforts should be complete, in order to support the employer’s decision with respect to the request.
 

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

As defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the term “discriminate” includes an employer’s failure to make reasonable accommodations to the limitations of a disabled employee. Reasonable accommodation may include reassignment to a vacant position within the company. The 10th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals recently held that a disabled employee could not support her failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, because she did not present evidence of any specific vacant positions to which she could have been transferred. Iverson v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, 10th Cir., No. 08-3264, June 17, 2009.

Michelle Iverson, a police officer with the City of Shawnee, Kansas, suffered a back injury while on duty in 2005. After undergoing surgery for her condition, Iverson was unable to pass a re-qualification test to return to her position as a police officer. She then requested accommodation in the form of a transfer to an open assignment with the City as a detective or non-officer, but was told that there were no jobs available. Iverson filed suit, claiming that she “could have performed numerous positions within the [City] with or without reasonable accommodation.” However, she did not specifically identify any position for which she believed herself to be qualified. Based on that failure, the lower court entered summary judgment in favor of the City. That decision was upheld on appeal to the Tenth Circuit.

For an employee to establish a prima facie case in a failure-to-accommodate claim, the employee must show that she is disabled, that accommodation within the existing job cannot reasonably be accomplished, that she has asked for reassignment to a vacant position, that she is qualified (with or without reasonable accommodation) to perform one or more vacant jobs, and that she has suffered injury because the employer did not offer reassignment to any appropriate vacant position. The Tenth Circuit held that these criteria assume that the burden is on the employee to specifically identify the vacant position or positions for which she believes herself to be qualified. Without such information, the employee cannot subsequently claim that the company’s failure to engage in the interactive process has caused an injury because there is no actual evidence that the interactive process would have likely produced a reasonable accommodation.

In Iverson’s case, she alleged generally that she “could have performed numerous positions within the [City] with or without accommodation,” and, in fact, argued that she could have performed positions as “detective, records technician, police dispatcher, and clerical or administrative positions within the City.” However, she failed to identify any specific position as available at the time that she was requesting reassignment. That failure led the Court to hold in favor of the City.

While this decision is limited to the Tenth Circuit, the court’s rationale is clear: an employee alleging that her employer failed adequately participate in the ADA’s interactive process will lose on summary judgment if she fails to show that a reasonable accommodation was possible, and that the process would have led to such accommodation. This case does not create an excuse for employers’ non-participation in a search for reasonable accommodation of a disability. However, it does point out at least instance in which the employee’s failure to provide sufficient input into the process can keep a case from going forward to a jury.
 

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

The 8th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals has upheld summary judgment in favor of an employer who terminated the employment of an individual undergoing cancer treatment. Peyton v. Fred’s Stores of Arkansas, Inc., 8th Cir., No. 08-2346, April 15, 2009. In that case, the Court held that because there was no reasonable accommodation that would have allowed the individual to perform the essential functions of her job during the period in which she was absent for treatment, there was no violation of the ADA.

An employer discriminates against an employee, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, if the employer fails to make “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.” However, ADA protection extends only to individuals who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or desires.

Floyce Peyton, an experienced retail store manager, was hired by Fred’s Stores of Arkansas as the manager of its Heber Springs store. After successfully completing three weeks of management training, Peyton began work on January 6, 2006. On January 9, Peyton was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and immediately was hospitalized. On that same day, Peyton’s fiancée delivered a note, signed by Peyton’s physician, to the store’s assistant manager, which stated that “Floyce Peyton needs to be off work at least 1/9/06. Return date unknown.”

Peyton underwent surgery on January 12. In the following days, the area manager for Fred’s Stores attempted to discuss with Peyton what type of accommodation Peyton might need. At that time, Peyton responded that she did not know how long she would be out. The area manager then contacted the regional vice-president to inform him of the situation and to advise him that the store was without a manager. On January 14, the area manager again called Peyton to let her know that the company had to “let [her] go.” The assistant manager was then made the store manager at Heber Springs.

In March, Peyton was given a limited release for work by her physician. After six months of chemotherapy, she was deemed physically able to perform the duties that would have been required of her as manager of the Heber Springs store. Peyton subsequently filed a law suit against Fred’s Stores, alleging that the company failed to accommodate her disability. The lower court granted summary judgment on behalf of the company; that decision was upheld by the Eighth Circuit on appeal.

The parties agreed that Peyton was disabled because of her illness and treatment, and that there was no information to indicate when, if ever, she would be able top return to work. They also agreed that, at the time of her hospitalization and initial treatment, Peyton was unable to perform the essential functions of her store manager job, with or without accommodation. Therefore, Payton was not a “qualified individual with a disability” for purposes of the ADA at the time of her firing. Further, the Court found that Peyton’s inability to assert a return to work date would require the company to allow her an indefinite leave of absence which, it held, was per se unreasonable as an accommodation, as it would “burden [the employer] with the duty to see into the future,” which was not the intent of the ADA.

However, employers should not use this case as the basis for overlooking the interactive process required by the ADA when determining whether a reasonable accommodation exists. Because cancer treatment is specifically referenced in the ADA Amendments Act, employers should carefully review situations in which employees ask for accommodation for such treatment, and should assure that a sincere attempt is made to reasonably accommodate such individuals. Employers should pause before considering employment termination to assure that, in fact, the individual is unable to perform the essential functions of the job, and that there is no alternative to an indefinite absence.
 

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

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) generally provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave during a 12-month period to an eligible employee suffering from a serious health condition. An employee who takes FMLA leave is entitled to be restored to the job he or she held at the time the leave commenced, or to an equivalent position. If, however, the employee is unable to return to work at the end of that 12-week period, he or she is no longer protected by the FMLA. Roberts v. The Health Association, 2d Circ., No. 07-3553-cv, February 3, 2009.

Laura Roberts was terminated from her employment with The Health Association (THA) in June 2004. At the time of her termination, Roberts had been out of work for approximately 10 weeks, on an approved FMLA leave. However, at the time of Roberts’ discharge, her doctor had opined that she would be unable to work until at least July 19, 2004, which would have come after the end of her 12-week leave.

Roberts sued her employer, alleging interference with her rights under the FMLA, and claiming retaliation for her exercise of those rights. The district court dismissed the claims, and Roberts appealed to the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision on the basis that Roberts could not have returned to her original position at the end of her 12-week leave, based upon her doctor’s opinion. Therefore, the Court held, Roberts was not prejudiced by the early termination. In addition, THA actually paid Roberts for 12 weeks worth of health benefits, which is all to which she would have been entitled had she completed the 12 weeks of leave before being discharged.

In addition, Roberts was unable to show that the circumstances surrounding her termination created an inference of retaliation. In fact, the evidence showed that Roberts was made aware that her job was in jeopardy prior to her formal request for FMLA leave. That fact precluded Roberts from successfully alleging that her termination was based upon a protected FMLA leave request.

In addition to her FMLA claims, Roberts argued that THA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when the company fired her because it regarded her as disabled. In order to succeed on that claim, Roberts would have to prove that THA regarded her as substantially limited in a major life activity. Where, as in this case, the “major life activity” at issue is working, an employee is required to show that the employer believes the individual to be suffering from a condition that prevents her from working in a broad range of jobs, not simply the job she previously held. Because Roberts did not provide such evidence regarding THA’s actions, the Second Circuit concluded that the lower court’s decision to dismiss the ADA claim was correct, as well.

The FMLA is one of the most administratively difficult federal anti-discrimination laws, partly because of its complexity, and partly because of its overlap with other federal statutes, as in this case. It is essential that an employer understand both its obligations under the FMLA, and the rights that can be appropriately exercised by an employer in dealing with individual employees with medical impairments and serious health conditions. In this case, the employer’s record keeping (which documented the early conversations with Roberts informing that her job was in jeopardy), along with the company’s willingness to treat Roberts fairly by allowing her to collect the 12 weeks of benefits to which she would have been entitled under the FMLA, supported the court’s decision that the company’s actions had a legitimate business basis, and did not violate federal law.

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

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that an employer’s failure to rehire an individual after layoff, based on the employee’s opiate-based prescription medication, did not violate the ADA. However, in an example of the overlap between the ADA and the FMLA, the court allowed the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim to go forward to trial, based upon a manager’s statements related to the same employee’s medical leave. Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., No. 05-02787 (6^th Circ. Oct. 16, 2008).  

James Daugherty worked for Sajar Plastics as a maintenance technician from 1991 until his layoff on January 5, 2004. In that capacity, he maintained buildings and equipment, often using hand and power tools, and operated certain heavy machinery including forklifts and overhead cranes.

In 2000 and 2001, Daugherty suffered flare ups of a previous back injury. To manage pain associated with those flare ups, Daugherty was prescribed increasing doses of Oxycontin and Duragesic, both opiate-based medications. Daugherty also requested and was granted intermittent FMLA leave during period of increased pain. In November 2003, Daugherty requested a lengthy period of such leave, and provided a doctor’s note that he would be able to return to work in January 2004. Daugherty claims that Sajar’s HR Director (Alexander) told him at that time that if he took FMLA leave for that period, “there would not be a job waiting for [him] when [he] returned.” Alexander disputes that claim.

Soon after Daugherty went on leave, Sajar began a round of lay offs. Because Dougherty was the least senior maintenance worker, it was decided that he would be laid off upon his return from leave. However, within a month, Sajar experienced an increase in business and decided to recall Daugherty to work. Alexander made the re-hire contingent upon passing a physical examination conducted by Dr. Altemus, who was routinely used by the company for pre-employment physicals. While Dr. Altemus found Dougherty physically able to perform the functions of the position, he expressed concerns about Dougherty’s medications, stating that “the analgesics may mask the symptoms of re-injury,” and “may cause am impairment of perception or judgment which might lead to an injury to himself or others.” Sajar then called Daugherty and told him that if he could provide documentation regarding a “reduction in his medications,” the company would consider re-employing him. Dougherty failed to provide that documentation, even after repeated requests, and his employment ultimately was terminated.

Daugherty then filed a lawsuit alleging that Sajar regarded him as disabled and that it violated the ADA when it failed to rehire him. He also claimed that his termination was in retaliation for his FMLA leave. The lower court granted Sajar’s motion for summary judgment on both claims, and Daugherty appealed.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit found that Sajar’s decision regarding Daugherty’s employment did not violate the ADA. To support a regarded-as-disabled claim, a plaintiff must show that the employer regards him as unable to perform a broad class or range of jobs. Dr. Altemus’ viewpoint regarding Dougherty’s medication restricted Dougherty only from the maintenance technician positions at Sajar and, therefore, was not sufficient to support his ADA regarded-as-disabled claim. However, the court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of Dougherty’s FMLA claim. The court held that Dougherty presented “direct evidence” of discrimination in the form of Alexander’s threat that the FMLA leave would affect Dougherty’s continued employment, and that a jury could find a “clear connection” between the FMLA leave and Sajar’s ultimate decision to terminate Dougherty’s employment.

As the number of cases filed under the “regarded as” provision of the ADA continues to increase, it is imperative for employers to be familiar with the standard of proof required to overcome that claim. In this case, the fact that the company was willing to continue to employ the individual if he was able to work with his physician to decrease the amount of his opiate-based medication indicated a perception on the part of the company that Dougherty was able to be employed in some capacity and, therefore, precluded a claim that the company was excluding Dougherty from a broad range of employment positions. In this case, the company’s effort to find a mutually beneficial resolution to the issue - while unsuccessful - had the ultimate effect of helping the company to avoid liability under the ADA.

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