June 2009
The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) has garnered a great deal of attention lately, particularly since the amendments of the American with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) took effect this year on January 1, 2009. The amendments of the ADAAA make it much easier for an individual to prove they are protected under the ADA as "an individual with a disability." However, a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit emphasizes that only a "qualified individual with a disability" has rights under the ADA.
The case involved an employee who suddenly became hospitalized due to diagnosed ovarian cancer after only one month on the job as a store manager. After the employee underwent emergency surgery and having missed approximately 3 work days, she informed her new employer that she would be out "indefinitely." Without any indication of when, if ever, the employee would be able to return to work, the employer terminated her and appointed a new store manager.
The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the employee's ensuing lawsuit alleging violations of the ADA, stating:
"Despite the unfortunate circumstances of plaintiff's illness, the ADA does not provide for a recovery against her employer. As noted, it is axiomatic that a person who cannot perform any of the functions of a job, with or without reasonable accommodation, cannot, as a matter of law, be considered 'otherwise qualified' under the ADA. That is the case here... On the issue of reasonable accommodation, she admits that at the time of termination she had no idea when, if ever, she would be able to return and that a request for an indefinite leave of absence is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA."
Of course, issues of reasonable accommodation under the ADA are not always so "cut and dried." Had there been some indication that the employee could return to work in a reasonably short period or otherwise performed the essential function of her job with some reasonable accommodation, the outcome of the case may have been different. Often times employers face additional considerations - most notably, FMLA leave which did not apply to the newly hired employee in this case. Unfortunately for the plaintiff in this case, the severity of her illness, though it clearly rendered her "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA, also made her "unqualified" to fulfill the job for which she was hired, either with or without reasonable accommodations.
Prudent employers faced with this kind of situation are wise to fully explore reasonable accommodations in writing and in advance of any decision to terminate an employee with a serious medical condition.
Questions? Please contact WS Shareholder and Senior Attorney James Sherman in the firm's Minneapolis office at (952) 746-1700, or jasherman@wesselssherman.com.
Starter Page - Sample Header
