Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of an ADA claim on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to show that he was disabled, that the employer failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation and that he had timely filed one of his claims within the 300 day limitations period. Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 18-5985 (6th Cir. 6-7-19). The plaintiff’s physician indicated that he had some lifting and bending restrictions which, at worse, may have impacted his ability to perform a particular job. “[J]ust because a plaintiff has work restrictions does not mean that he is disabled.”
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff worked for more than a decade after his doctor gave him permanent medical restrictions on bending and reaching. In 2015, he applied for a transfer, which was denied on account of those medical restrictions. He sought reconsideration several times, but was again denied. Shortly thereafter, the employer modified his assembly line position to require all of the employees to be able to perform four job functions instead of merely two. When he informed the employer that the additional two job functions would violate his medical restrictions, he was temporarily kept in his two-function position. In 2016, he was requested to update his medical restrictions with his physician because they were inconsistent with his current position. He did so in 2017 and the physician modified the restrictions which would have prevented him from performing the additional job functions. The plaintiff agreed with the restrictions and, once they had been modified, was able to perform the new job and continued to do so even throughout the litigation.
In November 2016, the plaintiff filed an EEOC Charge, which was dismissed for failure to show that he had a disability. He filed a lawsuit challenging the failure to transfer him to the material handler position, and failing to accommodate his alleged disability. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff was informed in November 2015 that he would not be transferred into the material handler position because of his medical restrictions. Although he attempted to get that decision reversed, the supervisors and human resources explained to him that the decision would not change unless his medical restrictions changed. He did not file his EEOC Charge until more than 365 days later even though the ADA requires Charges to be filed within 300 days. His requests for reconsideration did not re-start the limitations period.
Even if his claim had been timely, the Court also found that he had failed to prove that he had a disability. Prior to the amendment of the ADA, the Court had made clear that “simply having a work restriction does not automatically render one disabled, . . . . nor does being unable to perform a discrete task or a specific job.” After the ADA was amended, “an impairment that “substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability.”
Even so, Congress did not modify the definition of the major life activity of working, and a plaintiff who alleges a work-related disability “is still required to show that her impairment limits her ability to ‘perform a class of jobs or broad range of jobs.’” . . . . EEOC regulations explain that a plaintiff cannot claim a disability by simply “[d]emonstrating a substantial limitation in performing the unique aspects of a single specific job.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630, App. (2016). That Booth’s neck injury and related work restrictions kept him from working in the material handling role does not resolve whether Booth is disabled under the ADA. Rather than point to one job that he cannot perform, a plaintiff alleging a work-related disability must show that his condition precludes him from working in a class or broad range of jobs, “such as . . . assembly line jobs.” Id. Booth has not made that showing. To the contrary, Booth concedes that he has worked without interruption on the assembly line since injuring his neck in 2004—and has continued to work there since this litigation began.
The Court also rejected his timely failure to accommodate claim, which was based on the employer’s “pressure” to have his medical restrictions modified under threat of termination if he failed to do so.
However, the Court rejected this claim for the same reason as his refusal-to-transfer claim: he could not show that he was disabled. Moreover, he could not show that the employer failed to accommodate him because he continued to work uninterrupted even though the litigation. “Nor does Booth suggest that he misreported his symptoms or otherwise encouraged his doctor to modify the restrictions in order to preserve his job. To the contrary, Booth testified that he does not disagree with his doctor’s revisions to his work restrictions.”
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.
