Last week, the Cuyahoga County Court
of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer on the plaintiff’s
claims that she had been transferred and then terminated because the employer
perceived her as an alcoholic. Field
v. MedLab Ohio, Inc., 2012-Ohio-5068. The Court agreed that the plaintiff had been transferred
on account of poor performance – particularly poor communication and organizational
skills – prior to the employer learning that she had any medical problems.
According to the Court’s opinion,
there were several examples of the plaintiff’s failure to timely return calls
or visit clients who indicated that they would take their business
elsewhere. Indeed, her position had been offered to and
accepted by another employee earlier in the day when the plaintiff was
hospitalized. Further, she had never
indicated to anyone that she had a problem with alcohol. At worse, she had indicated later on the day
that her position was given to a co-worker that she was having a “nervous
breakdown.” When she returned to work,
the employer informed her that she was being transferred to a smaller and less
stressful sales territory without any change in salary. She admitted that she had never mentioned a
problem with alcohol to her employer and had no facts to show any unlawful
discrimination. Instead, she brought the
lawsuit because she subjectively felt that she was being treated differently
after her hospitalization. She was fired
after losing yet another client. The
Court concluded that “knowledge of a single hospitalization is not knowledge of
a disability . . . . General knowledge
about an employee’s condition and medical treatment, without more, is not enough
for a “regarded as” claim to survive summary judgment.”
Interestingly, while the Court indicates that
it relied in part on the federal ADA (and quotes the ADAA) , it also cited to
pre-ADAA law to reject some of the plaintiff’s allegations. For instance, the Court cited to the newish
ADAA definition of being “regarded as” disabled and only requiring that the
employee be regarded as having a physical impairment regardless of whether that
impairment is perceived to also limit a major life activity. ¶10. Yet, the court also cited to the Supreme
Court’s Sutton decision as requiring
that “the employer’s negative perception must encompass a broad class of jobs.”
¶11. It also rejected the plaintiff’s
argument that she was perceived as unable to handle a broad range of jobs.
¶30. Moreover, the court rejected the plaintiff’s
argument that her inability to handle stress was a mental impairment. ¶27.
Stress, however, is not expressly identified
as a physical or mental impairment under R.C. 4112.01. Moreover, this isolated
statement does not create a genuine issue of material fact that MedLab regarded
her as disabled because of a “mental disorder related to alcoholism.”
NOTICE: This summary is
designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does
not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation
because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can
change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this
information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you
have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
