Work Restrictions Alone Do Not Add Up to ADA Disability
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) substantially lowered the bar for plaintiffs to demonstrate a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, on occasion we still see federal courts reject ADA claims on the basis that the employee is not disabled as defined under the ADA. Earlier this summer, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals relied on pre-ADAAA law to conclude that an employee’s work restrictions were not tantamount to an ADA disability.
In Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc., 10 years earlier the plaintiff was placed under permanent job restrictions relating to a neck injury. Those restrictions did not prevent him from performing his job, but when he applied for a transfer, he was told that the new job’s duties were incompatible with his medical restrictions. He eventually sued Nissan, claiming ADA discrimination and failure to accommodate his condition. The district court dismissed the claim on summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision, concluding among other things that the plaintiff had not met his burden of demonstrating that he was a protected disabled individual under the ADA. The court cited several pre-ADAAA cases for the proposition that work restrictions are not the same as a disability. ADAAA did not change the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate that the condition interferes with a class or broad range of jobs, and not a particular function.
The plaintiff probably could have avoided this outcome if he had been more careful in describing his medical condition and its impact on his life in his initial pleadings. However, this case shows the continuing importance of employers carefully reviewing employees’ medical claims to determine if they are adequate to place them under the ADA’s protections. Even under the lower standard set by ADAAA, not every medical restriction is an ADA disability.
SoftPro to Pay $80,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
Software Company Fired Employee for Perceived Disability, Federal Agency Charged
SoftPro, LLC, a Delaware software company headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., will pay $80,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Matthew Elliott worked for SoftPro in an IT position at the company's Raleigh headquarters. Elliott, an individual with a record of opiate addiction, participated in physician-supervised medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for the addiction since 2009. In February 2017, Elliott took leave from SoftPro and voluntarily admitted himself to an inpatient treatment facility to eliminate the need for MAT. Elliott successfully completed the inpatient treatment and returned to work. Upon his return to work, Elliott was questioned by SoftPro about the purpose of his leave. Elliott disclosed his recent participation in a treatment program to eliminate his need for ongoing MAT. SoftPro fired Elliott on Feb. 27, 2017 because it perceived him as disabled, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities, including perceived disabilities and records of disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division (EEOC v. SoftPro, LLC, Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-00463) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Thereafter, Elliott joined in the suit individually with his own counsel.
In addition to the $80,000 in damages, the three-year consent decree settling the lawsuit requires that SoftPro revise, implement and distribute personnel policies to state that the company does not exclude employees based on their participation in a medication-assisted treatment program. The company must also provide annual training to its human resources team, managers, supervisors, and employees; post a notice to employees relating to the settlement; and report to the EEOC all negative employment actions the company takes against employees who have a record of substance abuse disorder or who are currently participating in, or have successfully completed, a drug rehabilitation program.
"Employees in recovery and actively participating in treatment should not fear losing their jobs," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "The EEOC will continue to litigate cases where people with disabilities are terminated based on fears and assumptions about the work they can perform."
Employer pays $90K to settle charges it fired employee for hearing loss
Dive Brief:
- Tamco Professional Coating Services Inc. has agreed to pay $90,000 to settle a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) disability lawsuit alleging that it unlawfully fired its foreperson because of his hearing loss.
- The Louisiana-based company fired the worker because it was concerned that the workers' compensation claim he filed over his hearing loss would increase its insurance costs, the EEOC said. In addition, the employer allegedly failed to follow its progressive discipline procedures when the foreperson was let go. Such actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the EEOC alleged in the complaint.
- Tamco also agreed to conduct training as part of the three-year consent decree settling the case.
Dive Insight:
"It is important for employers to know that they cannot fire an employee in an attempt to avoid increased insurance costs resulting from the employee's physical or mental impairment," Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC's Houston District Office, said in a statement. An employer may not take into account a person's disability when making decisions about discharge, the EEOC has explained.
In documentation on questions regarding deafness and hearing impairments, the EEOC noted that an employer may fire a hearing-impaired worker for safety reasons when the worker poses a significant risk of substantial self-harm or harm to others that cannot be eliminated or reduced through reasonable accommodation. However, the commission has said, this determination must be based on objective, factual evidence, not fears and speculation. The commission also has said that "some employers assume incorrectly that workers with hearing impairments will cause safety hazards, increase employment costs, or have difficulty communicating in fast-paced environments."
The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) provides information about accommodations for employees with hearing disabilities. JAN has conducted an ongoing survey on the benefits and costs of accommodations since 2004, and survey results "consistently have shown the benefits employers receive from making workplace accommodations far outweigh the associated costs," JAN said.
Providing accommodations tended to result in better retention, improved productivity and morale, reduced workers' compensation and training costs and improved company diversity. Thirty-eight percent of survey participants said they saved on workers' compensation or other insurance costs by making accommodations. The employers participating in the survey reported that 59% of accommodations "cost absolutely nothing," while the rest of accommodations had a typical cost of only $500, JAN said.
United States: Court Rejects Disability Discrimination Claim In Light Of Reasonable Accommodation, Supports Academic Standards
On August 7, 2019, a federal district court in Rhode Island rejected a student's disability discrimination claim against Bryant University. The student enrolled in the University’s Physician's Assistant program, a rigorous program that requires enrollees to maintain a 3.0 grade point average. The student fell short of that average in his first term.
At the start of his second term, he requested an accommodation for ADHD in the form of time-and-a-half for each exam. The College granted this request, but the student still did not meet the College's academic requirements. In his third term, the student continued to fall short of the program's academic requirements, and the College decided to decelerate him from the program. The student declined to return to the College in a decelerated status, and instead he filed a lawsuit.
Among his claims, the student alleged that the College discriminated against him on the basis of disability. However, the Court rejected this claim, finding that the student was not "otherwise qualified" for the PA program within the meaning of the disability discrimination laws. The Court noted that the College granted the student several accommodations he had asked for (even beyond the time-and-a-half for exams) but that the student still was not able to meet the College's academic requirements for the PA program. Consequently, the Court decided that the College could not be liable for disability discrimination.
Feds warn Ocean County that its election polling places are not ADA compliant
The U.S. Department of Justice has reached an agreement with Ocean County to ensure that voters with disabilities have better access to their polling places.
A multi-year study by the federal government has found that many election districts in the county had unacceptable physical obstacles at their polling places. Those barriers may have impeded those with mobility or vision impairments from their constitutional right to vote, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito said in a prepared statement.
In 2015, the Justice Department — through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey — began “a compliance review” of the bi-partisan Ocean County Board of Elections under the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The New Faces Of Disability: Busting Stereotypes And Bending The World To Fit Their Needs
The message for the corporate world: Listen to people with lived experience. Collaborate with us. See our talent. From fashion and film to tech and technical outdoor gear, this demographic is 1 billion strong and not shy about what they want. Barbarin hit a nerve when she wrote #whenIcallmyselfdisabled, your opinion does not count. The hashtag has gone viral. More people outside of the disability community are hearing her truth.