United States: Third Circuit Finds No ADA Violation Where Employee Deemed Unfit for Duty
Mondaq News Alerts
On Tuesday August 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a claim for disability discrimination, where the plaintiff was deemed psychologically unfit for duty and subsequently had his employment terminated. The Third Circuit's decision provides guidance for employers regarding the extent of their obligations to accommodate employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
In McNelis v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., No. 16-3883 (3d Cir., Aug. 15, 2017), the plaintiff, an armed security guard for a nuclear power plant, sued his former employer for disability discrimination following his termination. McNelis had experienced mental health problems, including extreme paranoia. His behavior prompted a fitness-for-duty evaluation by an independent psychologist, which was required under PPL policy, as well as under regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The psychologist determined that McNelis was unfit for duty, and his employment was terminated shortly thereafter.
The court held that McNelis' termination did not violate the ADA. As the court explained, McNelis was not qualified for the position because he not able to perform the essential functions of his job; namely, he could not demonstrate that he was fit for duty or could not maintain an unescorted security clearance. According to Judge Hardiman, who issued the opinion on behalf of the panel, the fact that federal regulations may prohibit an individual who is psychologically unfit for duty from holding a job that implicates public welfare is a deliberate and "unremarkable" policy judgment that does not violate the ADA. The court further explained in a footnote that compliance with legally mandated job requirements is a valid defense to claims brought under the ADA.
The court's decision serves as a reminder for employers to ensure that their policies are aligned with all relevant legal requirements, as well as with public safety considerations, and that job descriptions accurately reflect the essential functions associated with each position. Reed Smith's Labor & Employment attorneys are available to review your company's existing policies or to answer any questions you may have.
JD Supra
The United States District Court of the District of Connecticut became the first federal court to issue a ruling that federal law does not preempt a state law that expressly prohibits employers from firing or refusing to hire someone who uses marijuana for medical purposes. This is the second court decision finding that an individual may pursue a claim when adverse action is taken by the employer for a positive marijuana drug test when the individual is a medical marijuana user (we discussed the first court decision here). These decisions may demonstrate a larger change in how courts will address claims against employers when medical marijuana is involved.
CMS may allow miniature horses inside the classroom
WSOC Charlotte
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools officials may let miniature horses be used as service animals for students in the classroom.
The policy would bring the district in line with the American Disabilities Act.
If the school board approves the unusual policy, board members said the miniature horses would be just like service dogs. They would guide their student everywhere from the cafeteria to hallways.
7th Circuit reverses judgment for deaf litigant, tosses suit
Indiana Lawyer
A federal court ruling in favor of a deaf litigant who was denied a court-provided sign language interpreter for mediation in his child custody case was reversed on appeal Friday.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and award of $10,380 in damages in favor of Dustin King. The panel remanded his federal civil rights case brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act with instructions to dismiss the suit, though King may file an action in state court.
“The district court held that Indiana does not enjoy sovereign immunity because this case falls within the abrogation of (state sovereign) immunity sustained in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). We disagree with that conclusion,” Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the panel in Dustin King v. Marion Circuit Court, 16-3726. In Lane, a litigant who used a wheelchair couldn’t reach a second-floor courtroom, which the court held violated his right to fundamental access to the court.
Easterbrook wrote that no such violation occurred in King’s case, when he requested and was denied a court-appointed American Sign Language interpreter in Marion County’s Modest Means Mediation Program. King ultimately participated in mediation with the interpretative assistance of a relative and received a satisfactory outcome. Further, Easterbrook wrote, local court rules provide Marion Superior judges the discretion to determine when mediation is appropriate.
Lexology
On August 15, the Third Circuit issued a decision that addressed, for the first time by an appellate court, the interplay between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fitness-for-duty regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The panel affirmed the judgment of the district court, which had found in favor of the nuclear power plant operator, who terminated an armed security officer after he failed a fitness-for-duty examination. The security officer claimed that his termination violated the ADA. The Court held that there was no ADA violation because the security officer could not perform the “essential functions” of his job.
Medical marijuana anti-discrimination law not preempted by federal law
In an issue of first impression, a federal district court in Connecticut found an implied private right of action under Connecticut's Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA), and further held that federal law did not preempt the PUMA discrimination claim of a registered medical marijuana user whose job offer was rescinded after she tested positive, even though she explained to the employer that she only took synthetic cannabis at bedtime and was not under the influence at work. In finding no preemption, the court explained the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not regulate the employment relationship and that the ADA does not regulate non-workplace activity. (Noffsinger v SSC Niantic Operating Co, LLC, DConn, August 8, 2017, Meyer, J.)
Evidence sufficiently suggests employee was fired for seeking FMLA leave, not dishonest expense reports
An employee told that he was fired for dishonestly for seeking reimbursement for expenses advanced to trial on his claim that the employer's proffered explanation was pretext for FMLA retaliation. Overruling the employer's objections and adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation that its motion for summary judgment be denied, a federal court in South Caroline held that while some evidence supported the employer's explanation, there was also sufficient evidence of retaliation to go to the jury. ( Cannon v Equilon Enterprises, LLC, DSC, August 15, 2017, Duffy, P.)