According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff claimed that
he was unable to sleep and sought medical treatment. The specialist speculated that it could be sleep apnea, but also observed
that he suffered from “poor sleep hygiene,” (i.e., went to bed only when he
felt like it, ate at odd hours, etc.).
The specialist said that further tests would be necessary before he
could make a diagnosis, but the plaintiff never pursued those tests. In the meantime, the plaintiff self-medicated
(i.e., caffeine and sleep supplements). When
he was repeatedly counseled about poor job performance and sleeping at work, he
blamed it on a sleeping disorder and said that he was trying to treat it
himself. His supervisor told him to “try
to hurry up with that.” When the
plaintiff’s performance failed to improve, he was verbally reprimanded and
demoted. He complained that it was
unfair to hold his sleeping disorder against him (which caused the manager to
roll his eyes). When co-workers
complained about his poor attitude in the week following his demotion, he was
terminated, filed an EEOC Charge and ultimately commenced this lawsuit.
The Court
found that the plaintiff could not prove that he suffered from a medical or
mental impairment, as necessarily to establish the existence of a
disability. The fact that medical
professionals made note of his claimed symptoms does not change the fact that
he was never diagnosed with a sleep disorder. The plaintiff’s “bare
assertions of sleep apnea, without any supporting medical evidence, cannot establish a “physical or mental impairment” within the
meaning of the ADA.” The Court rejected
the plaintiff’s argument that his own experience should be sufficient evidence
to establish a disability because the plaintiff’s “own experience” is relevant
only to establishing whether the diagnosed impairment substantially limits a
major life activity and not to whether the plaintiff suffers from an
impairment.
Interestingly, the Court also concluded that even if the
plaintiff actually suffered from sleep apnea and only got about 2-3 hours of
sleep each night, that would still not constitute a disability because prior
precedent indicates that poor sleeping and breathing are not substantially
limiting or severe impairments. The
Court refused to relax those precedents in light of the 2008 amendments to the
ADA:
Though the 2008 Amendments undoubtedly eased the burden
required for plaintiffs to establish disability, we note that Congress
expressly chose to retain the “substantially limits” modifier for “one or more
major life activities.” See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A); ADA Amendments Act
of 2008, PL 110–325, September 25, 2008, 122 Stat 3553. A lesser burden is a
burden nonetheless, and one that [the plaintiff] has failed to carry. We agree with
the district court that, “[w]hile a diagnosis might not be absolutely necessary
[to establish a record of impairment], in this situation, some diagnosis must
explain the duration or severity of the impairment.” . . . We therefore hold that [the plaintiff’s]
self-described symptoms to his physicians, without corroborating medical
evidence or any diagnosis are insufficient to establish a substantial
limitation on a major life activity.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that he had a “record
of impairment.” He had no diagnosis and
the recommendation for further testing by his sleeping specialist did not
constitute a record of impairment.
The Court
also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that he was “regarded as” having an
impairment. While the Court acknowledged
that the 2008 ADAA had relaxed the “regarded as” definition from being regarded
as having a substantially limiting impairment to simply having an impairment,
the plaintiff still could not satisfy the lesser burden. “[I]t is not enough that the employer
is simply aware of a plaintiff’s symptoms; rather the plaintiff must show that the employer
regarded the individual as “impaired” within the meaning of the ADA.” In this case, the plaintiff undermined his
own allegations when he admitted that his sleeping disorder did not affect his
ability to work because the ADAA’s definition of impairment under the “regarded
as” prong did not include minor and transitory conditions. “We agree with the
district court that Neely paints an inconsistent picture by “both asserting
that his employer was dismissive of his alleged disability and that he was so
affected by it that his employer regarded him as disabled.” That his employer was aware of the plaintiff’s
self-diagnosed symptoms was insufficient evidence to show that it perceived him
as suffering from a medical or mental impairment.
Finally, we note that the “regarded as” prong “is intended to
allow individuals to be judged according to their actual capacities, rather
than through a scrim of ‘myths, fears, and stereotypes’ accruing around a
perceived impairment.” Mahon v. Crowell, 295 F.3d 585, 592 (6th Cir.
2002). Benchmark’s comments about Neely’s purported sleep disability do not
reflect the myths or stereotypes regarding disabilities that the ADA is
designed to combat, nor do they suggest discrimination or bias arising from a
perceived disability.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s retaliation claim
because he never engaged in any protected activity before his demotion or
termination. The Court concluded that
simply informing an employer about the possible existence of a medical
impairment – without requesting a reasonable accommodation – is not – by itself
– protected conduct:
The parties do not dispute that Neely never requested an
accommodation nor filed a formal [EEOC] charge against his supervisor before he
was terminated. Instead, Neely’s purported protected activity was “complaining
to Hanrahan [his supervisor] that it was unfair to use his sleeping disorder
against him.” Neely Br. at 24. Nonetheless, Neely asks us to extend Bryson to
cover his circumstances—that is, permit an individual who is not disabled under
the ADA, who never requested an accommodation, and who never filed a formal
charge while employed to be deemed to have engaged in a “protected activity”
simply for discussing his sleep issues with his employer. We decline to do so
here.
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 be changed or 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.
