Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

The U.S Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently determined that an emergency services dispatcher who had recurring depression could not maintain a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after she was terminated for failing a fitness-for-duty examination.

The ADA prohibits discrimination against “qualified individuals with a disability.“ This includes those individuals with any medical, physiological, or psychiatric condition that substantially limits a major life activity. The ADA also protects certain individuals from discrimination based on an employer’s stereotypes and unfounded concerns about an individual’s medical condition and medical history.

In Wisbey v. Lincoln, Neb., the employee brought a “regarded as” claim, asserting that her employer mistakenly believed that an actual impairment – in this case her depression - substantially limited her ability to perform her essential job functions. Here, the court determined that no claim existed because the employee was terminated for a tangible reason – i.e. her psychiatrist had determined she couldn’t perform the essential work duties, including performing a public safety job requiring alertness and coolness under pressure - and she admitted that she needed leave because of her depression. As a result, the “regarded as” claim could not stand.

Conditions such as depression and other mental illnesses or are not always understood and may give rise to unfair treatment and adverse actions based on the assumption that an employee cannot handled specific job related duties or tasks.

If you are qualified for your job and suffer from any medical, physiological, or psychiatric condition that substantially limits a major life activity, and your employer discriminates against you, you may be able to file a claim under the ADA.

Continue reading "Employee Terminated Based On Depression Did Not Have Claim Under The ADA" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), provides that disability discrimination is illegal. Specifically, the ADA prohibits discrimination against “qualified individuals with a disability” regarding terms and conditions of employment, retaliation against employees who complain about discrimination, or participating in someone else’s discrimination lawsuit.

Whether someone is considered a “qualified individual with a disability” is a legal definition and depends on whether you have a condition that substantially limits a major life activity. If you fall within this definition, then the ADA requires that your employer make an effort to “reasonably accommodate your disability.” This may be some simple such as changing your start time or providing an alternate workspace. An employer is not required to make all requested accommodations, only those that are reasonable, i.e. – they are not required to make changes that are excessive or burdensome.

Whether specific accommodations are considered reasonable is determined on a case-by-case basis.

In EEOC v. Hibbing Taconite Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed whether a mining company was required to make reasonable accommodations so that a hearing-impaired applicant – James Edstrom - could obtain a job at an open pit mine. The mining company asserted that it failed to hire Edstrom because he could not perform the essential functions of working at the mine as a result of his hearing impairment and inability to use a workplace radio.

In response, Edstrom provided evidence of accommodations made for him at past mine jobs that allowed for adequate communication and a safe environment. These accommodations included the use of radio, hand signals, eye contact, horn use, and written contact. The court determined that a triable issue of fact existed, and denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that a jury could find that these forms of communication, along with texting, constituted “reasonable accommodations” required under the ADA.

Continue reading "Alternative Modes Of Communication May Be Considered A Reasonable Accommodation" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark:

A man who was fired one day after telling his supervisor he was HIV positive may bring a claim for employment discrimination and impermissible medical inquiry claims under the amended Americans with Disabilities Act. In Horgan v. Simmons, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois determined HIV falls within the new definition of “disability” as set forth under the amendments.

Not all illnesses or injuries are covered by the ADA. The ADA only protects “qualified individuals.” Qualified individuals are those with any medical, physiological, or psychiatric condition that substantially limits a major life activity.

In Horgan, the Illinois District Court evaluated whether HIV constitutes a covered disability. Writing for the court, Judge Ruben Castillo held that it is, reasoning that HIV falls within the category of being an “episodic or in remission” that “substantially limits a major life activity when active.” The court further noted that the operation of ‘major bodily functions,’ including an individual’s immune system are considered “major life activities” for the purpose of defining an actual disability under the ADA.

In addition to determining whether HIV was a covered disability, the court also reviewed whether facts exists showing that the president of the company improperly inquired into Horgan’s medical status after he told Horgan he was “really worried about him” and needed to know if “there was something medical going on.”
After persistent questioning, Horgan revealed his prognosis, but indicated that it did not affect his ability to work and be productive. However, the company president continued to ask questions about his condition. Horgan was told that he “should go on vacation” and “leave the plant immediately.” The president also sent out an email stating effective immediately Horgan was no longer a member of the company.

Continue reading "Fired Employee With HIV May Bring Claim Under Amended ADA" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued a new guide to help both employers and employees better understand some complicated issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act: The Americans with Disabilities Act: Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities.

The new guide addresses an issue under the ADA that has given rise to a good deal of litigation—how far can employers go in enforcing their performance and conduct standards against employees who have disabilities that may limit their ability to comply with those standards. The EEOC’s new guide states that employees with a disability must meet the same performance standards that are applicable to all employees in the same job, and that employers need not reduce or relax those standards, even if an employee requests it as a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC also points out that employers may discipline disabled employees for violations of rules of conduct, even where the misconduct is caused by the employee’s disability. However, the EEOC does note that if a reasonable accommodation to an employee’s condition can be made which would allow the employee to meet a performance or conduct standard, then the employer must make such an accommodation.

The new guide addresses a number of other issues, including the application of dress codes to disabled employees and the applicability of the ADA to employees with substance abuse problems,

The new guide is written in a very accessible style, and it contains a number of examples that help illustrate the ADA’s sometimes complicated requirements. It’s worth a read by employers and employees alike.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark:

In late September, President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008, which will become effective January 1, 2009.

As we wrote in a prior post, although the ADA is, in theory, a wonderful law for disabled employees, in practice, it has been very difficult for employees to prevail in disability discrimination cases. The United States Supreme Court has issued several key decisions under the ADA which dramatically limited the scope of the law, and the lower courts, including the Eleventh Circuit (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over the federal district courts of Georgia, Florida and Alabama) have uniformly interpreted the law in an employer-friendly fashion.

This may well change under the new law. The new law specifically expressly criticizes the Supreme Court’s ADA decisions and also takes aim at several EEOC regulations which have supported the anti-employee interpretation of the ADA. Although the new legislation is quite complex, and will need to be fleshed out by the courts before its full meaning becomes clear, it contains a number of employee-friendly provisions. Perhaps the most significant change is the new definition of the term “major life activity.” Under the new law, the definition of major life activity will be expanded to include a “major bodily function” so that if an individual has a serious medical condition that does not directly affect a major life activity, the individual will now be covered by the ADA. These covered bodily functions include the functions of the “immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.” The new law also includes a non-exhaustive list of the types of covered major life activities: “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.”

Continue reading "Amendments to Americans with Disabilities Act Promise New Day for Disability Discrimination Plaintiffs" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a wonderful law; unfortunately, it has not proven to be easy for employees to win cases under the ADA. A recent bill introduced in the Senate to amend the ADA, if passed, may make it easier for disabled employees to prevail in disability cases.

Senate Bill 3406, entitled the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, would make it easier for an employee to claim a covered disability in a number of ways. It would expand the law’s current definition of “major life activity” to include a “major bodily function” so that if an individual has a serious medical condition that does not directly affect a major life activity, the individual would still be covered by the ADA. Additionally, the bill would make it easier to establish a “regarded as” disability. Under the proposed law, an employee claiming a regarded as disability would only need to show that he or she was regarded as having an impairment—not that the impairment was perceived to be a substantially limiting one. The proposed law would also prevent courts from taking into consideration an individual’s use of medicines and other mitigating measures in the determination of whether or not the individual is disabled.

The bill was sponsored by Senators Tom Harken (D-Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Although the bill was just introduced, and President Bush opposed an earlier, similar piece of legislation that had sought to eliminate the “major life activity” requirement completely from the ADA, the bill has broad-based, bipartisan support and is being co-sponsored by 63 other senators. We’ll keep you posted.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) contains a rarely used provision that protects employees who are not disabled but who are discriminated against because they are associated with an individual, such as a spouse or other family member, who is disabled. A recent case from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Trujillo v. PacifiCorp, although not controlling in the state of Georgia, has set a very strong employee-friendly precedent that should be favorable to employees throughout the country.

William and Debra Trujillo were long-term employees of PacifiCorp and they participated in the company’s health insurance plan. Their son Charlie was also covered by the plan. Charlie had cancer (which the company was aware of), and in the spring of 2003 he had a relapse, necessitating an aggressive course of medical treatments which, as the company was self-insured, eventually cost the company more than $60,000.

Just 11 days after Charlie’s relapse, the company launched an investigation of the Trujillos on suspicion of time theft. After a brief investigation, in which key witnesses were not interviewed, and suspect evidence was relied on, the Trujillos were discharged.

In response, the Trujillos filed an association discrimination lawsuit under the ADA, contending that they were terminated not because of their alleged time theft but because of the healthcare costs the company incurred as a result of Charlie’s illness. The lower court ruled in favor of the company, concluding that the Trujillos failed to show that the circumstances raised a reasonable inference that Charlie’s disability was a determining factor in the company’s decision to fire them.

Continue reading "Parents Discharged for Son's Medical Costs Have Disability Discrimination Claim" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark: