Franklin County Court of Appeals Reverses Employer's Summary Judgment on "Regarded As" Disability Discrimination Claim.

Last month, the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed in major part a disability discrimination claim brought by a terminated day care worker with a genetic heart condition which made her susceptible to infections.  Anderson v. Bright Horizons Children's Ctrs., L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-1031.  The Court agreed that the plaintiff could not show that she was “disabled” under Ohio law because O.R.C. §4112.02 – unlike federal law -- does not include “operation of a major bodily function” as a disability.   The Court also rejected her argument that she had requested a reasonable accommodation with vague statements.   However, the Court found sufficient evidence for trial about whether the plaintiff was “regarded as” disabled and had suffered an adverse employment action on account of her heart condition when she had within the prior week disclosed that she suffered from a heart defect which was causing her attendance issues and there was a factual dispute as to whether she was even required to call off after being taken off the work schedule.    The Court also revived a claim against the plaintiff's former supervisor for aiding and abetting the employer's alleged discrimination.  

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered from a genetic heart valve defect which rendered her more susceptible to bacterial infections.    She was hired in March 2017 to work in the infant room of her employer’s daycare center.  Over the next 3.5 months, she missed 8 non-consecutive days due to various infections.  When she called off for another infection on July 10, she disclosed her genetic heart defect as the underlying cause.  When she returned to work on July 12, she was counselled for excessive absenteeism, informed that she was not providing the necessary consistency of care for the infants and it was suggested that she transfer to the substitute pool or resign.  She was also reprimanded for inappropriate use of her cell phone when she was supposed to be teaching earlier that day.   She suffered an anxiety attack when she next reported to work on July 14, called off and went to the ER.   Her mother called in to explain her genetic condition, her treatment in the ER for anxiety, migraine and blood pressure, etc. and admonished her supervisor for permitting feverish infants to be admitted to the day care when they posed a risk to her daughter.   While the mother requested that the employer not hold the heart defect against her, neither the mother nor daughter ever informed the employer that she had been released to return to work after leaving the ER.

The plaintiff was not put on the following week’s schedule, purportedly because she had not yet reported that she had been released to return to work.  The plaintiff claims that she assumed that she had been fired and did not report to work, but instead, attempted repeatedly to call her supervisor and manager and assumed that they were avoiding her.  The HR Department attempted repeatedly to call the plaintiff and, because her voice mailbox was full, emailed her with times they were available to talk with her.  The plaintiff did not call or email them as requested.  The employer’s policy provided that an employee would be considered to have resigned if they failed to report or call off from work for two consecutive “scheduled days.”   The plaintiff was informed on July 20 that she was deemed to have resigned because she had not reported to or off from work on July 14 (when she had) or on July 17 or 18 (when she was not on the schedule).  

The plaintiff sued the following month for disability discrimination.  The trial court granted the employer summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed.

The Court of Appeals first noted that while Ohio courts rely on federal ADA and ADAA decision for persuasive authority and guidance, federal court decisions are not controlling because the ADAA and its regulations differ substantially from federal law.  In particular, unlike federal law, Ohio law does not provide “that the operation of a major bodily function is a major life activity.”  Courts will not amend a statute where the General Assembly has not done so.   Accordingly, the plaintiff “has not demonstrated that her congenital heart defect substantially limits a major life activity” and cannot show that she is “disabled” under Ohio law under the first prong of the definition. 

Yet, the third prong of the definition encompasses “regarded as disabled” claims.  “Under the plain language of R.C. 4112.01(A)(13), a plaintiff may be disabled if the employer regarded the plaintiff as having a mental or physical impairment, without regard to whether the employer regarded the plaintiff as substantially limited in his or her major life activities.”  There was no dispute that the plaintiff suffered from a physical impairment due to her heart defect.   There was also no dispute that the plaintiff and her mother had disclosed the heart defect in the week before she was terminated.    The court rejected the employer’s argument that the disclosure of the defect was insufficient because they had no medical confirmation that it was actually causing her absences:

However, a question of fact arose regarding whether defendants believed [she] had a physical impairment once [she] informed [her supervisor] about her congenital heart defect.   [She] did not have to substantiate her medical condition with documentation to create a question of fact sufficient to survive summary judgment.

The court also rejected the employer’s arguments that the plaintiff’s prior medical releases to return to work without restrictions (for her prior sinus infections) precluded her from providing a disability because she was not claiming that her sinus infection was her disability.  Rather, the plaintiff had alleged

that defendants regarded her as disabled due to her congenital heart defect. Defendants did not receive any medical note returning [her] to work without restriction after an absence to treat her congenital heart defect. Consequently, defendants in this case had no reason to believe that the ongoing condition [she] suffered from—a congenital heart defect—had resolved itself because she had produced a note returning her to work without restriction after an acute infection.

The Court also rejected that the employer’s argument that the plaintiff had necessarily voluntarily resigned by not reporting to work after she had been taken off the schedule.  The employer argued that Mondays and Tuesdays were her regular work days and she was required to show up or call off.  The Court concluded that a reasonable jury could disagree about whether the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned by not properly calling off work on her normal work days (because she assumed that her supervisor was not answering the phone to deliberately avoid her) or responding to the HR Department when she had not been put on the schedule.   If she had voluntarily resigned under the policy, then she had not suffered an adverse employment action.  

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she had provided direct evidence of discrimination from the employer’s testimony that her prior sporadic absences played a role in the decision to terminate her employment.   Rather, that testimony required an inference from her disability-related absences were really about the disability and not the absences.    Nonetheless, that testimony was relevant to proving indirectly or circumstantially that she had been terminated on account of her disability.

A reasonable factfinder could determine that [the supervisor] deduced from this information that [the plaintiff’s] congenital heart defect was the underlying cause of her numerous acute infections and concomitant absences from work. Thus, a reasonable factfinder could infer that when [the supervisor] conceded that [her] absences played a role in her termination, she was really conceding that [her] perceived disability played a role in her termination.

Not surprisingly, the temporal proximity between the date when the plaintiff disclosed her heart defect and the date of her termination also constituted evidence that her disability motivated her termination:

[D]efendants terminated [her] employment on July 20, 2017, only ten days after [she] first disclosed her congenital heart defect to [her supervisor]. The temporal proximity between the disclosure of [her] alleged disability and the adverse employment action is circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination.

Plaintiff was also replaced with an employee who did not have a disability.

The Court found irrelevant that the plaintiff was reprimanded for her inappropriate usage of her cell phone because that reprimand played no role in the decision to terminate her employment.

The Court noted that the parties did not seem to address or dispute whether the plaintiff was qualified for her position.  It also refused to consider the issue of pretext because the trial court had not addressed it below.   Nonetheless, it found the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment based on the circumstantial evidence the plaintiff had presented that she had been discriminated against on account of being regarded as disabled.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the employer failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation.  “When an employee does not propose a reasonable accommodation, his or her failure-to-accommodate claim must fail.”   The plaintiff claimed that she had requested on July 10 that the employer not count her disability-related absences against her, but the court found she had not sustained her burden of proving that she had requested a reasonable accommodation.  It similarly rejected the affidavit of the plaintiff’s mother she had requested on July 12 that the employer not hold the heart defect against her daughter because the statement was “not sufficiently direct and specific enough to qualify as a request for a reasonable accommodation.”

It is too vague for any employer to recognize it as a proposal for specific, special action needed to accommodate a disability in the workplace. Melody Anderson's request is more like general plea for "understanding" than a proposal for a concrete accommodation.

The  Court refused to recognize a separate claim for the employer’s alleged failure to engage in the interactive process because such a duty only arises under federal law when the plaintiff requests a reasonable accommodation – which did not occur here.  The Court noted that O.R.C. §4112.02 never mentions the interactive process obligation.  

The Court also reinstated the plaintiff’s claim that her supervisor had aided and abetted the employer in discriminating against her.   Because the “regarded as” disabled claim had been revived, this claim would be revived as well.

The Court then affirmed a number of discovery rulings and sanctions involving emails and recorded telephone conversations.

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. 

Sixth Circuit Rejects Honest Belief Defense in Regarded As ADA Claim Based on Circumstantial Evidence That Questioned Employer’s Credibility.

On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on an ADA “regarded as” discrimination case and rejected the employer’s honest belief defense based on evidence produced by the plaintiff to create a jury question about pretext.   Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists PC, No. 19-5148 (6^th Cir. 11-6-19). First, the plaintiff produced expert witness evidence about the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s professional conduct, which made debatable the reasonableness of the employer’s decision, particularly when no investigation had been conducted before her termination.  In other words, there were no particularized facts supporting the employer’s decision beyond the initial report of allegations.  Second, the plaintiff relied on an email sent by a co-worker claiming that she had been fired because of concerns with her vision.  This was arguably not a stray remark when the co-worker had been requested to send the email by one of the decision-making physicians who failed to deny in his affidavit that he told her what to say.


According to the Court’s opinion, about a month after the experienced plaintiff CNRA was hired in June 2015, a physician noticed that she had poor eyesight (because of how close she had her face to a monitor in order to read it). She admitted that she had “degenerative retinal condition” that made it hard for her to read certain screens and medical records,” but assured him that it did not affect her ability to perform her job.  That physician told another and claimed that the plaintiff would be blind within 10 years, which the plaintiff disputes.   After a few other physicians expressed similar concerns, a meeting was held with the plaintiff on October 30 where she had explained that she had been diagnosed a decade earlier and was requested to obtain medical clearance that she could safely perform her job duties and to consider LTD insurance.  However, one of the physicians indicated that they may need to consult with counsel because her ophthalmologist was unlikely to give them the necessary assurance.   Otherwise, she was told that she was a “good fit” with the practice.


The plaintiff consulted with her ophthalmologist, but the Court noted that there was nothing in the record about what the plaintiff was told or, importantly, what – if anything -- she told her employer.  Apparently at the suggestion of two of the physicians to ensure that she was not misreading data, the plaintiff began having her co-workers read hospital monitors to her and this simply aggravated concerns about her eyesight and these concerns were noted in her performance evaluation.   The employer was then informed of two apparent clinical judgment errors that the plaintiff made in patient care which were unrelated to her eyesight.  No investigation was conducted concerning the errors, but at a partnership meeting the following week, her eyesight and the errors were discussed and the decision was made to terminate her for the alleged errors.   She was informed in mid-January that she was terminated solely because of the supposed errors, which shocked her because no one had questioned her about the issues beforehand.

A new co-worker, after discussing the termination with one of the physicians (who did not have responsibility for HR), then emailed the other CNRAs (at the physician’s direction).  She explained in her email that the plaintiff had been terminated because of concerns with her eyesight and “a few other issues” and that the plaintiff had failed to produce documentation that she could safely perform her job.  The undisputed evidence was that this new employee had never been told why the plaintiff had been fired and instead that she had based her explanation on staff gossip.  The particular physician was never questioned about it during the litigation and his affidavit was strangely silent about what information he told the new employee about why the plaintiff had been terminated.   


The plaintiff found another job as a CNRA and no issues were raised about her eyesight or professional judgment.  She filed an EEOC Charge and sued on the basis that she was illegally terminated because she was regarded as disabled when, in fact, she was not.   During the litigation, she supplied an expert affidavit that the alleged mistakes she had made were not in fact judgment errors, but were normal incidents during which she performed reasonably.   The trial court excluded the expert affidavit, and granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, relying primarily on the honest belief defense.  On appeal, the Court ruled that portions of the expert affidavit were still admissible and could be used to show that the employer’s explanation for her discharge was pretextual.


To prevail on a “regarded as” discrimination claim, the Court held that the plaintiff must show

 that their employer believed they had a “physical or mental impairment,” as that term is defined in federal regulations.  The employer may then rebut this showing by pointing to objective evidence “that the impairment is (in the case of an actual impairment) or would be (in the case of a perceived impairment) both transitory and minor.”

“[E]ven if an employee establishes that their employer “regarded” them as disabled under the aforementioned standard, the employee must still show that their employer discharged them (or took some other form of adverse employment action against them) because of, or “but-for,” their actual or perceived physical or mental impairment.”  This can be shown with either direct evidence or using the circumstantial burden of proof.   Under the latter method, if the employer articulates a non-discriminatory reason for its action, “an employee can show that an employer’s explanation was pretextual in “three interrelated ways”: “(1) that the proffered reasons had no basis in fact, (2) that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate the employer’s action, or (3) that they were insufficient to motivate the employer’s action.”  Further, the plaintiff “may also demonstrate pretext by offering evidence which challenges the reasonableness of the employer’s decision to the extent that such an inquiry sheds light on whether the employer’s proffered reason for the employment action was its actual motivation.” At the summary judgment stage, the employee is only required to identify a disputed issue of material fact and is not required to prove her case.


The Court found sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the plaintiff was perceived as disabled:

Viewed in the light most favorable to Babb, the record shows, not only that Maryville physician-owners and employees openly expressed concern about Babb’s “degenerative retinal condition,” including on Babb’s job evaluation and during the meeting at which Maryville decided to fire Babb, but that Maryville’s head of personnel (Dr. Robertson) met with Babb specifically to discuss Babb’s vision, and, during that meeting, asked Babb if she had disability insurance.  See Babb, 361 F. Supp. 3d at 775 (emphasizing this latter fact).  More still, after that meeting, Dr. Robertson advised her colleagues that Babb’s vision issues might require them to consult an attorney.  This is more than enough evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that, in January 2016, Maryville genuinely believed Babb had a “physiological . . . condition” affecting one of her “body systems,” namely, her vision. 

While the Court agreed that requesting a fitness-for-duty examination (as happened here on October 30) cannot be used against the employer, this case was distinguishable from those cases where the employer ONLY requested a fitness-for-duty examination and did not also mention the concerns on a performance evaluation or discuss the medical condition while deciding to terminate the employee, etc.


The Court then found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether the employer’s explanation was pretextual.  First, there was a question about whether the plaintiff’s two errors were in fact errors reflecting terrible clinical judgment which would justify her termination or, based on the expert affidavit, reflected that she performed reasonably under the circumstances.  “This dispute matters because the less serious Babb’s clinical mistakes, the more likely they were not the “real” motivation behind Babb’s termination.” The Court rejected the employer’s honest belief defense because it “failed to make a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking its adverse employment action.” The expert’s affidavit challenged “the likelihood that a reasonable anesthesiology practice would have actually relied on those facts to fire an experienced nurse practitioner like Babb.”


Second, the Court found sufficient disputed evidence as to whether the alleged clinical errors actually motivated the employer’s decision.  The employer insisted that she was fired solely because of the clinical errors and never contended during litigation that her vision posed a safety hazard.  But, hours after the plaintiff had been terminated, a co-worker sent an email immediately after speaking with one of the decision-making physician partners that the plaintiff had been terminated primarily because of questions about her vision.  Finally, her vision was a significant issue of discussion during the meeting when the decision was made to terminate her employment and was even discussed in her performance evaluation.   “If this kind of “smoking gun” evidence cannot get an employment discrimination plaintiff past summary judgment on the question of pretext, it is hard to imagine what could.”


The Court refused to draw any favorable inferences in favor of the employer based on undisputed evidence that the co-worker’s email had contained information which had never been relayed to her by any of the physicians.  Rather, the Court found that the other undisputed facts made the co-worker’s explanation about her source of information a disputed issue of fact that only a jury could resolve.    In particular, ruling in the employer’s favor would require a finding that she “is a credible witness, which, of course, we cannot do at this stage.”


The Court also refused to disregard the co-worker’s email as an irrelevant “stray comment” because, among other things, the particular physician never submitted any evidence about what he told the co-worker in his affidavit and apparently was not deposed about the information either:

Aycocke’s e-mail, however, was not the kind of “stray discriminatory remark,” offered by a “non-decisionmaker,” disconnected to the decisional process,  . . . Rather, Aycocke’s e-mail was a quasi-official communication, written at the behest of one of the key players in Babb’s termination (Dr. Proffitt), almost immediately after Babb’s termination, following an in-person conversation with Dr. Proffitt.  It was not a speculative claim shared privately among colleagues; it does not read like gossip.  Indeed, despite submitting a declaration in discovery,  . . .  Dr. Proffitt has never testified to the contrary.  In light of this rather unique context, then, a jury should decide whether Aycocke based the content of her e-mail on “rumor and innuendo,” as she and Dr. Robertson testified at their depositions, or whether she based it on the word of Dr. Proffitt, as the circumstantial evidence would seem to suggest.  And, if a jury could find that Aycocke based her e-mail on the word of Dr. Proffitt, a jury could also find that Maryville acted pretextually when it fired Babb for “clinical errors.”

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.

Sixth Circuit Rejects Self-Diagnosed ADA Claims

Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision confirming in writing an intuitive, but never explicit, aspect of the ADA:  That self-diagnosed medical conditions do not generally qualify as medical or mental impairments for purposes of proving the existence of a disability.   Neely v. Benchmark Family Services, No. 15-3550 (6^th Cir. 1-26-16).   It is hardly uncommon for an employee to complain about an undiagnosed medical condition and then later sue for failure to accommodate after an adverse employment action.   In this case, the plaintiff complained about his inability to sleep and fatigue, and sought medical treatment.   However, his specialist never made a diagnosis, speculated that his insomnia could be medically-related or due to poor life habits, and recommended further testing, which the plaintiff never obtained.   When he blamed his performance problems on his undiagnosed sleeping disorder, he was told to hurry up and take care of that.   When his performance did not improve, he was demoted and then later fired after his attitude deteriorated.    The Court found that the plaintiff could not prove that he had a disability because he had never been diagnosed with a medical or mental impairment.  Further, the Court rejected his “regarded as” claim because an employer’s knowledge that he had certain symptoms was not the same as regarding him as having a serious and non-transitory medical impairment and because the plaintiff admitted his problem did not affect his ability to work.  Finally, the Court rejected his retaliation claim on the grounds that simply discussing medical symptoms with an employer is not protected conduct when the plaintiff lacked a diagnosis, failed to ever request an accommodation and never filed an EEOC charge before being terminated.

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.

Employer That Relied on Work Restrictions Imposed By Its Own Physician Loses Summary Judgment on Employee’s Regarded-as- Disabled Wrongful Discharge Claim

Last week, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on a claim that it fired an injured employee whom it regarded as disabled.  Carnahan v. Morton Bldgs. Inc., 2015-Ohio-3528.  The Court applied the 2008 ADA Amendments Act in construing Ohio law – in that it only required proof that the employer regarded the employee as impaired and did require that the employer regarded the employee as substantially limited by that impairment.  The employer admitted that it refused to reinstate the plaintiff after he was released to return to work without restrictions by his own physician and that it instead relied on its own physician’s speculation of work restrictions that would be prudent in light of possible impairments the plaintiff could suffer from his injury.  In other words, the employer required the plaintiff to submit to a fitness evaluation by its own specialist, who found nothing abnormal about the plaintiff’s mental or physical condition, but felt that certain work restrictions would be prudent.  The employer’s practice was to only reinstate workers released without any restrictions for non-work related injuries.  Therefore, it replaced the plaintiff as foreman and terminated his employment after receiving its physician’s recommended restrictions – thus regarding the plaintiff as disabled.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury and was off work for a period of months.  His family physician released him to return to work on a transitional part-time schedule for two weeks, following by a complete release to return to work without any restrictions.  The employer’s practice was never to reinstate to an employee with any work restrictions unless he was injured in a work-related accident (i.e., covered by workers compensation).  When the plaintiff spoke with co-workers, a few employees observed that he seemed to have balance issues, a changed demeanor and trouble with his memory in adding numbers.  Therefore, the employer requested that he be examined by a neurosurgeon of its choosing before he could return to work.  That neurologist did not evaluate his physical abilities, but submitted the plaintiff to a CT scan, an EEG and neurological examination, which revealed no abnormalities physically or mentally.  Nonetheless, the neurologist recommended a number of work restrictions, none of which the employer was willing to consider.  The employer claimed to have terminated him out of safety concerns and his inability to perform his job.  It did not consider assigning him to a light duty job, which was available.

The plaintiff denied that his brain injury substantially limited any of his major life activities after his five-month recovery.  In fact, he had obtained another job as a forklift driver and had passed a physical fitness examination by his new employer.  Therefore, he could not proceed on a failure-of-accommodation or other disability discrimination theory.  The court also refused to consider that he was regarded as disabled simply because the employer requested its own fitness-for-duty evaluation by a neurosurgeon.

The court had little difficulty finding that the employer regarded the plaintiff as disabled and that its neurosurgeon’s report could not protect it from a disability discrimination claim:

Based upon the type of injury suffered by [the plaintiff], [the employer’s neurosurgeon] was concerned about possible neurological impairments and listed several limits on Carnahan’s abilities that could occur as a result of the neurological impairment. These limits were based upon possible issues that [the plaintiff] might have as there were no indications of issues at that time and he actually passed all of the tests he was given. (italics added for emphasis).

In particular, the neurosurgeon’s report to the employer provided as follows:

Currently, the patient is neurologically stable. * * * The patient has no memory problems. * * * The patient indicated that he is participating in day-to-day activities without any significant difficulties.

OPINION: * * * Currently, the patient’s stamina, flexibility, strength, coordination, equilibrium, dexterity, vision, hearing, mobility, and effort are fairly within normal range. * * * Based on my evaluation on January 24, 2012, [the patient’s] cognitive ability, organization, and recall skills are within normal limits. I do not see any cognitive deficiency currently.

Nonetheless, he recommended the following restrictions on the plaintiff’s return to work:

a. To avoid working above floor level.

b. To avoid any head injuries.

c. To avoid any falls.

d. Avoid working at heights and climbing ladders.

e. To avoid irregular and extended work hours and overtime.

f. To avoid sleep deprivation.

g. To avoid exposure to extreme temperatures for more than 50% of his work time.

h. To avoid climbing ladders to hang trusses and install roofing.

There was also little dispute that the plaintiff suffered an adverse action from the employer’s incorrect perception about his brain injury.  He was demoted and terminated because of the work restrictions recommended by its own neurosurgeon.

Finally, the plaintiff could prove that he was qualified and could physically and mentally perform his job.  He had been released to return to work without any work restrictions by his own physician.  In addition, he had obtained and was performing similar employment for another company after passing a fitness for duty examination.

In concurring, one judge noted that the neurosurgeon’s report could not create a material issue of fact about the plaintiff having a substantial limiting impairment because it was based on possible or future concerns instead of his actual and current physical and mental state.

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.

Sixth Circuit: EAP Referral for Fitness for Duty is Not Evidence of Perceived Disability

Last week, the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati affirmed the dismissal of a perceived disability and retaliation claim brought against an Ohio employer under the ADA and Ohio law.   Johnson v. University Hospitals Physician Services, No. 14-4026 (6^th Cir. 7-7-15).  In that case, the plaintiff was referred to EAP for a fitness evaluation after she was repeatedly found sleeping at her desk and admitted that her new medication made her drowsy.   After she requested and was recommended for medical leave, she failed to return to work when released by her medical provider and refused to provide a fitness for duty statement.  After being fired for refusing to perform a job duty, she sued that her fitness evaluation had violated the ADA.  However, the Court rejected the argument that perceiving an employee as impaired is “tantamount” to perceiving the employee as disabled since the impairment may not be substantially limiting even though it interferes with job performance.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had concerns about the proper completion of forms being submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS).   Concerned that she was participating in fraud, she contacted the employer’s compliance hotline.  A compliance officer investigated her concerns and assured her that she was properly completing the forms in compliance with CMS protocols.   The plaintiff conducted her own research and contacted the CMS subcontractor, an employee of which reinforced her concerns.  She forwarded these emails to her supervisors and was again contacted by the compliance officer who said that the subcontractor supervisors agreed that the employer’s practice was appropriate.  

Meanwhile, the plaintiff was occasionally napping at her desk and reported that she would be late one day because her new medication was making her drowsy.  After a number of sleeping incidents (none of which violated employer policy), she was referred to EAP for a fitness for duty evaluation based on her impaired functioning.  She requested FMLA and STD, was referred to a psychiatrist and time off work by EAP and released to return to work by her new psychiatrist.  In the meantime, the employer requested a new FMLA certification.  The employee did provide the new certification or return to work.

The employer ordered her to return to work by October 1 or be fired.  The plaintiff responded by filing a Charge of Discrimination and providing a list of conditions about her return to work, including how the CMS forms would be completed.  When she refused to complete the forms as instructed, she was terminated for refusing to perform her duties.  This litigation ensued focused only on the fitness for duty evaluation by EAP and the delay in reinstating her to work.  Surprisingly, she did not bring a whistleblower claim or wrongful termination claim.

The Court applied a “but-for” causation standard under the ADA and Ohio law.  It did not apply the ADAA definition of perceived disability.  Instead, it found that she had to prove that the employer regarded her “actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities.”  In any event, it rejected her argument that her referral for an EAP evaluation was evidence of that the employer perceived her as disabled under the ADA: 

“[A] defendant employer’s perception that health problems are adversely affecting an employee’s job performance is not tantamount to regarding that employee as disabled.”  . . . An employer’s request that an employee undergo a medical exam “may signal that an employee’s job performance is suffering, but that cannot itself prove a perception of a disability because it [alone] does not prove that the employer perceives the employee to have an impairment that  substantially limits one or more of the employee’s major life activities.” . . . .. “Deteriorating [employee] performance may be linked to motivation or other reasons unrelated to disability.” . . . (citations omitted).

Defendant stated on the referral form that “impaired functioning” was the basis for [her] referral. The report of the doctor who examined [her] stated that she was referred for evaluation because she was “falling asleep at work,” and generally had a “difficult” relationship with her manager. These reasons for referral are directly related to [her] ability to do her job.

In addition, the plaintiff failed to show that the employer was at fault for her delay in returning to work.  The plaintiff refused to cooperate with providing either medical certifications or a fitness for duty from her own psychiatrist  and was still invited back to work.   While there may have been a miscommunication about her return to work, the delay was not attributable to any perception of a disability.  Moreover, her submission of a list of conditions to her return reflected the fact that she was in no hurry to return to work.  Finally, the employer’s alleged irritation with her concerns about the CMS form were not attributable to any perception of disability. 

The retaliation claim was easily dismissed because the plaintiff could not show that the employer’s reason for her termination – her refusal to complete the CMS forms as instructed – was merely a disguise for unlawful retaliation.  Indeed, she admitted that she would probably still be employed if she had completed the form as instructed. 

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.

Xenia Employer Settles ADA Failure to Hire Lawsuit With EEOC for $30K

Yesterday, the EEOC  announced that a Xenia, Ohio employer had settled a lawsuit alleging that it had violated the ADA by rescinding a job offer in October 2012 on account of lawfully prescribed medication taken by an applicant to control a seizure disorder.    The EEOC filed suit in the federal court in Dayton (at  Case Number 3:14-cv-0211)  in June 2014 against Save Edge, Inc. (f/k/a File Sharpening Company, Inc.) asserting that its job offer had been withdrawn because it regarded the applicant as disabled and incapable of safely performing the duties of the operator position.  According to the EEOC’s Complaint, the applicant’s medication had been revealed during a pre-employment drug test.  The applicant never sought any accommodation or suffered any work restrictions on account of his medical condition or medication.   In the lawsuit, the EEOC sought back pay, front pay, lost health insurance benefits, punitive damages and injunctive relief.

In addition to paying $30,000 to the rejected job applicant (for back pay, interest, and compensatory and punitive damages), the employer is required by the consent decree to:

·        Prohibit future discrimination by its officers, managers and employees against disabled employees or applicants,

·        Prohibit future retaliation by its officers, managers and employees against applicants or employees who exercise their rights to complain about discrimination or assist in an investigation or discrimination-related proceeding,

·        Implement within 60 days a written disability policy and procedures to ensure equal employment opportunities are afforded to employees and applicants with disabilities,

·        Post within 5 days a notice of non-discrimination at its facility,

·        Train its managers, supervisors and human resources personnel every year for three years about the ADA and employment discrimination; and

·        Report annually for three years to the EEOC its compliance with the consent decree, including attendance at the mandatory training, the agenda of the training, the continued posting of the notice, and information about any requests for reasonable accommodations and internal complaints of disability discrimination, etc.

There was nothing in the EEOC press release about the employer being required to offer employment to the rejected job applicant.

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.

Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FMLA and ERISA Claims

Today, the Sixth Circuit released two opinions affirming the summary judgment dismissal of two lawsuits.  One involved FMLA and disability discrimination claims and the other involved denial of STD/LTD benefits under ERISA.  In the FMLA case, the plaintiff employee failed to show that his termination was related to his use of FMLA  leave or violated Ohio law.   Blosser v. AK Steel Corp., No. 12-4015 (6^th Cir. 4-2-13).  In the ERISA case, the plaintiff employee claimed to be too stressed out to work, but refused to consult with a psychiatrist and had only the vague support of her primary care practitioner to support her claims.  Therefore, the Court found it was not arbitrary or capricious for the insurance carrier to deny her claims under ERISA.   Hogan v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 12-5902 (6^th Cir. 4-2-13).

In Blosser, the plaintiff employee was hired in 2007 as an at-will engineer and received negative performance feedback:

[The manager] informed [plaintiff] that his performance was not meeting expectations and told him that he would need to improve. On one occasion, [the manager] indicated that the cost and time associated with one of [plaintiff’s] projects was “getting out of hand” and that [his] projects were not progressing as expected. Nevertheless, [plaintiff] continued having problems and failing to meet the expectations of [the manager] and other supervisors at AK Steel.

In September 2008, the plaintiff took FMLA leave to remove a brain tumor and was released to return to work without any medical restrictions in November 2008.   He returned to work on December 1 without any medical restrictions and admitted that he was not suffering from any disability. His work performance did not improve after his medical leave.  While he accomplished assigned tasks, his manager felt that he did not show enough initiative or independent judgment.

[The manager] rated [plaintiff] as “below satisfactory” in seven of ten performance sections, including “job knowledge, planning, control, management of resources, decision-making, communications (oral and written), and current performance.” [The manager] explained his ratings by writing, “Al is slow to assume the responsibilities of the Infrastructure work for Middletown Works. . . . [He is] not aggressive enough. . . . The quantity and difficulty of the projects that Al has been assigned is lower due to the length of time he has taken to work on them. . . . [He] has not achieved the desired improvement in response time.” When [the manager] and [plaintiff] met to discuss the evaluation, [he] blamed any substandard performance on his recent medical problems.

In the meantime, the recession adversely affected the company’s business and layoffs were made based on seniority, job performance and uniqueness of skills.  Because the plaintiff had low seniority, a non-unique job and documented poor performance, he was selected for layoff.  Before he had been notified of the layoff, the plaintiff emailed the HR department – in an attempt to avoid being laid off – that his medical condition had not been properly considered in his prior performance evaluation.  He filed suit following his layoff.

The Court found that the plaintiff could not show that he was laid off because of his FMLA leave merely because the layoff occurred six weeks following his return to work.    First, the Court focused not on the date of his return to work, but on the date several months earlier when he requested FMLA leave in September.  The passage of four months between his FMLA request and his layoff was found insufficient to support, by itself, the implication of retaliation.  “[A] plaintiff must couple temporal proximity with other evidence to show causation.”  In this case, the “other evidence” submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient.  The offer by his supervisor to help him move was irrelevant.   A comment that his work performance had not improved or changed since his medical leave was also irrelevant.  Comments by the company CEO in general against a state law form of FMLA leave was also insufficient to show retaliation.  In addition, the plaintiff could not show pretext in that there had been dissatisfaction with his job performance before he requested medical leave and those comments were consistent with his subsequent performance evaluation following his medical leave.   He also could not dispute the company’s economic need for layoffs during the recession.  Finally, he could not show his layoff was retaliation for emailing HR because the decision had already been made before his email was sent.

The Court also rejected his disability discrimination claim under Ohio law on the grounds that he could not show that he was disabled when he returned from a brief medical leave with no medical restrictions.  The Court found that his surgery and the potential of a need for future medical treatments did not render him disabled as having a record of a disability.   Instead, his brain tumor – while serious – was of temporary duration and was resolved without any further medical restrictions.  Therefore, the Court rejected any argument that it constituted a record of a substantial impairment. 

The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence that he had been regarded as disabled and could not show that his layoff was pretext for discrimination.

In the Hogan case, the plaintiff visited her primary care physician in September 2008 complaining of anxiety, difficulties concentrating, panic attacks, disliking her job and back pain.  He diagnosed her with depression, prescribed medication and she stopped working two days later on the grounds of depression, anxiety and panic attacks.   She visited her physician a week later complaining of anxiety and work-related stress and he agreed that she required a medical leave to adjust to her new medications.  A month later, she explained to her physician that she was still too stressed to return to work and he referred her to a psychiatrist.   She visited her EAP, which noted no restrictions on her work or daily activities, but referred her to another psychiatrist in order to rule out Alzheimers or dementia.  There was no evidence that she had ever consulted with any psychiatrist.

The plaintiff’s claims for STD and LTD were denied because she failed to provide satisfactory proof of disability.  While her primary physician noted that "significant stressors at work exacerbate [her] condition . . . but did  not connect any specific work activity to her condition, nor did he provide any evidence of objective testing or fruther evaluation.  And while he noted restrictions on her work activities, he did not initially place any restrictions on any other activities of  [her] daily life."  In rejecting her claim, the defendant company explained the:

 

lack of clinical evidence of functional deficiencies and added “we cannot conclude from the records we received a physical or mental inability to function at work other than your current dislike for your position.

 . . . .

Disability is determined by medically supported functional limitations and restrictions which preclude ability in performing your occupation. We do not dispute you may have been somewhat limited or restricted due to your diagnosis, however an explanation of your functionality and how your functional capacity prevented you from performing the requirements of a Leave Processor was not clinically supported as we were not provided with physical exam findings, physical limitations, and severity of symptoms.

The Court affirmed the denial of the claim:

In evaluating Hogan’s claim, LINA received only three brief visit notes from Hogan’s treating physician—an internist lacking any sort of mental-health specialization. These notes indicated that the idea to take time off from work originated with Hogan and was not a restriction imposed by her physician (although Dr. Schurfranz agreed with her decision to stop working until her medications better controlled her self-reported symptoms). The record lacked any sort of clinical verification, and despite requests and opportunities to do so, Hogan failed to provide the type of information about her specific limitations that could be used by LINA to determine that she met the plan’s definition of disability.

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.

Ohio Court of Appeals Rejects "Regarded As" Disabled Claim Supported Only by Knowledge of Single Hospitalization

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.

Congress Passes ADA Amendments Act to Abrogate Pro-Employer Supreme Court Decisions.

This week, Congress reached an agreement on amending the Americans With Disabilities Act when both the House and Senate passed the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which President Bush is expected to sign. The ADAAA becomes effective on January 1, 2009 and the EEOC has been tasked with drafting binding regulations interpreting and implementing the new provisions. The ADAAA is intended to reverse many pro-employer decisions by the Supreme Court (including Sutton v. United Air Lines and Toyota Manufacturing v. Williams) which some felt improperly narrowed the reach of the ADA. Among other things, the ADAAA changes existing law as follows:

1) Broadening the statutory definition of “major life activity” to include “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working” and to include “the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.”

2) Specifically requiring the definition of disability to be construed broadly. “The definition of disability in this Act shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this Act, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act” and an “impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.”

3) The mitigation measures doctrine has been abrogated. Except for ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses, a “determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as (I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies; (II) use of assistive technology; (III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or (IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.” This means that the ADA will now cover individuals with controlled chronic conditions, such as diabetes, and asthma, etc.

4) An individual can be regarded as having a disability if he or she proves only that s/he “has been subjected to an action prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment” regardless of whether “the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” In other words, the individual need only to be regarded as impaired to be regarded as disabled even though to actually be disabled, s/he would have to be substantially limited by the impairment. However, a person will not be treated as regarded as disabled if the impairment is “transitory and minor” (i.e., “an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.”). In other words, having a broken arm would not convert the person to disabled because the impairment is transitory.

5) Employers “need not provide a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification to policies, practices, or procedures to an individual” who is only incorrectly regarded as disabled. In other words, only those who are actually disabled (rather than merely regarded as disabled) are entitled to reasonable accommodations.

6) Covered entities “shall not use qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an individual's uncorrected vision unless the standard, test, or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

7) Reverse discrimination claims are prohibited. “Nothing in this Act shall provide the basis for a claim by an individual without a disability that the individual was subject to discrimination because of the individual's lack of disability.”

Employers can take some comfort that earlier provisions of the proposed ADAAA did not survive the Senate version, including versions that would have widened the definition of “disability” to include any mental or physical impairment (like the laws of some states, like Connecticut), a requirement to put the burden of proof on employers, and a per se list of disabilities.

Insomniacs can read the full ADAAA at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110p47TJQ::

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.