Americans with Disabilities Act Case Law Developments 2007–2008 Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, the Federal courts have heard hundreds of cases involving ADA and related Rehabilitation Act claims. It is important to understand that courts use the same analysis for employment cases under the Rehabilitation Act as they use for ADA Title I employment cases. The decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court hearing these cases have affected implementation and enforcement of the ADA. This document summarizes important decisions for 2007–2008, providing precedent or influence in their and other Federal courts in the Southeastern United States. The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals with jurisdiction over states in the Southeast Region include: * Fourth Circuit North Carolina (NC), South Carolina (SC) * Fifth Circuit Mississippi (MS) * Sixth Circuit Kentucky (KY) and Tennessee (TN) * Eleventh Circuit Alabama (AL), Florida (FL), Georgia (GA) Access to the complete versions of the ‘ADA Case Law Alerts and Briefs’ presented in this paper are available from the Southeast DBTAC at: www.sedbtac.org/legalissues.php?idpg=54&audience=All#CLresults Additional ‘Legal Updates & Issues’ are available from the Southeast DBTAC at: www.sedbtac.org/legalissues.php?idpg=14. Prepared by the legal research staff of the Burton Blatt Institute (BBI): Centers of Innovation on Disability at Syracuse University (http://bbi.syr.edu/) for the DBTAC: Southeast ADA Center (Southeast DBTAC) (http://www.sedbtac.org/). This document does not provide legal advice. If you have further questions about the issues of this case that relate to you, please consult an attorney licensed in your state. Court Cases Listed by Court Supreme Court of the United States 2 Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki 2 Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 3 Fourth (4th) Circuit Court of Appeals 3 EEOC v. Federal Express Corp. 3 Wilson v. Phoenix Specialty Mfg. Co. 3 A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore Co., MD 4 Fifth (5th) Circuit Court of Appeals 4 Milton v. Nicholson 4 Washburn v. Harvey 4 Sixth (6th) Circuit Court of Appeals 5 Bryson v. Regis Corp. 5 Gruener v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. 5 Eleventh (11th) Circuit Court of Appeals 5 Holly v. Clairson Industries, LLC 5 Greenberg v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. 6 Novak v. Metrohealth Medical Center 6 Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A. 6 Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. Of Trustees 7 Case of Additional Interest 7 National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. 7 Supreme Court of the United States The disability community took keen interest in two discrimination cases that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this term. The first, Federal Express v. Holowecki, though not an ADA case, was widely considered likely to impact interpretation of the ADA’s Title I employment provisions. The second, Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, was an ADA Title I case, however, the parties settled before the Court heard arguments. Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki 128 S.Ct. 1147 February 27, 2008 Federal Express employees sued their employer, alleging FedEx’s company policies discriminated on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Similar procedures apply for filing employment discrimination complaints under the ADEA, ADA and the Civil Rights Act. Even though the plaintiff did not file a formal EEOC charge, the Court ruled that the plaintiff’s questionnaire and affidavit contained all necessary information and sufficiently constituted a “charge” as required by EEOC procedure. However, the Supreme Court’s opinion specifically stated the decision should only apply to the ADEA, and not be precedent for ADA Title I or Civil Rights Act Title VII cases. Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Settlement Agreement Reached January 14, 2008 Pam Huber injured her arm and became unable to perform her job duties. She requested that her employer, Wal-Mart, accommodate her by transferring her to an equivalent position. Instead of transferring her to a vacant, equivalent position, Wal-Mart required Ms. Huber to compete with other applicants for the position. When she did not get the position, Wal-Mart transferred her to a lower-paying position. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, however, Wal-Mart and Ms. Huber reached a settlement before the Court heard oral arguments making them unnecessary. The question whether the ADA requires an employer to reassign an employee with a disability to a vacant, equivalent position, for which a more qualified applicant exists, will remain unanswered by the nation’s highest court. The Eighth Circuit’s decision that the employer does not have to reassign the employee with a disability to the position, but can place a more qualified individual in the position, will stand. Return to Court Cases Listed by Court Fourth (4th) Circuit Court of Appeals EEOC v. Federal Express Corp. 513 F.3d 360 January 23, 2008 Mr. Ronald Lockhart, who is deaf, was employed by Federal Express. After FedEx repeatedly denied Lockhart’s request for an interpreter, he filed a formal complaint with the EEOC. Several weeks later, FedEx fired Mr. Lockhart, citing poor attendance. The EEOC filed suit against FedEx alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliation for his filing the complaint. The court found that FedEx was aware of Lockhart’s disability and of its obligations under the ADA, and recklessly disregarded their legal obligations. The court affirmed that $8,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages awarded to Mr. Lockhart were constitutional. Wilson v. Phoenix Specialty Mfg. Co. 513 F.3d 378 January 23, 2008 Phoenix Specialty Manufacturing denied its employee, Jimmy Wilson, accommodations following the progression of his Parkinson’s disease. Phoenix also refused to train Mr. Wilson on a new, complex computer system, due to the belief that his difficulties with motor control would cause Wilson to make errors when inputting information. Phoenix subsequently eliminated his position as part of an effort to downsize. The court held that Phoenix fired Wilson in violation of the ADA Title I because they regarded him as disabled, and that Phoenix’s stated reasons for discharge were baseless. A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore Co., MD 515 F.3d 356 February 12, 2008 In response to the planned opening of a methadone clinic in Baltimore County, local residents organized against the clinic’s opening. The County Council quickly enacted a bill imposing new zoning requirements for such clinics, effective immediately. The clinic and some of its clients brought suit, alleging indiscriminate treatment under ADA Title II. The County argued that Title II did not allow one person or entity to assert the rights of others in an associational cause of action, and therefore the clinic lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The court held that the clinic itself was entitled to standing under the statutory language of Title II, and that a jury must determine whether the Council regarded the clinic clients as disabled. Return to Court Cases Listed by Court Fifth (5th) Circuit Court of Appeals Milton v. Nicholson 256 Fed. Appx. 655 September 11, 2007 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) offered a position to plaintiff Ms. Carolyn Milton, and asked that she provide documentation from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs indicating that she was fully recovered from her disability and that the position was suitable. When the plaintiff could not provide such documentation, the VA withdrew the offer of employment and Ms. Milton sued under the Rehabilitation Act. The court held that, even assuming Ms. Milton could establish a case of discrimination regarding the VA’s withdrawal of the job offer the VA provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, and Ms. Milton was unable to show the reason was baseless. Washburn v. Harvey 504 F.3d 505 October 10, 2007 Mr. Richard P. Washburn was employed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). During his one-year appointment to the position of Supervising Appraiser, Washburn underwent surgery for jaw cancer. At the end of the appointment, he was not promoted to the permanent position of Supervising Appraiser and brought suit under the ADA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The court dismissed the Title VII claim because it does not apply to employment discrimination based on disability. The court also dismissed the ADA claim, as the ADA specifically exempts the USACE as a federal employer. Finally, the court held that an issue of fact existed as to whether Mr. Washburn was “otherwise qualified” for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act claim. Return to Court Cases Listed by Court Sixth (6th) Circuit Court of Appeals Bryson v. Regis Corp. 498 F.3d 561 August 16, 2007 Ms. Karen Bryson, worked at a hair salon owned by Regis Corporation. She requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when she needed surgery for a knee injury. Regis fired Ms. Bryson after her physician did not give her clearance to return to work following the expiration of her FMLA leave. Ms. Bryson filed suit alleging retaliation for her leave request and violations of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (applying the standards and precedent of the ADA). The court held that the facts supporting Bryson’s FMLA claim were sufficient to allow the case to proceed to a trial by jury. The court also found that Bryson was not an individual with a disability for purposes of the KCRA because her knee injury was temporary and did not limit a major life activity. Gruener v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. 510 F.3d 661 January 3, 2008 Ms. Sharon Gruener’s employer, Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., requested an updated physician’s statement indicating her limitations. After determining that Ms. Gruener’s limitations prevented her from performing the essential functions of her job, Ohio Casualty terminated her. Ms. Gruener contended that Ohio Casualty mistakenly believed that she could not perform the major life activities of manual tasks and work. She presented evidence that she had difficulties with manual tasks, but was able to perform the functions of her job with assistance from co-workers. The court held that this evidence was not sufficient to show that Ohio Casualty regarded her as having a disability. Return to Court Cases Listed by Court Eleventh (11th) Circuit Court of Appeals Holly v. Clairson Industries, LLC 492 F.3d 1247 July 19, 2007 After unofficially accommodating plaintiff Tommy Holly’s occasional tardiness due to his paraplegia, employer Clairson Industries implemented a new no-fault attendance policy. Clairson terminated Holly soon afterward, as he exceeded his allowable tardy occurrences. The court concluded that strict punctuality, however, was not an essential function of Holly’s position, and therefore he was a qualified individual with a disability within the scope of the ADA. Greenberg v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. 498 F.3d 1258 September 10, 2007 Employer Bellsouth had a safe load limit policy that limited the weight of employees using certain equipment to 300 pounds. Plaintiff Allan Greenberg, employed by Bellsouth, is obese. Greenberg’s weight prevented him from being in compliance with Bellsouth’s policy, so his supervisor chose assignments accordingly and instructed Greenberg to lose weight. After six months, Bellsouth terminated Greenberg. Greenberg sued his employer under ADA Title I, alleging that Bellsouth terminated him on the basis of being disabled by obesity. The court found that Mr. Greenberg was not limited in a major life activity, and therefore not a qualified individual with a disability entitled to ADA protection. Novak v. Metrohealth Medical Center 503 F.3d 572 September 28, 2007 After accumulating her allotted number of unexcused absences under Metrohealth Medical Center’s no-fault attendance policy, Ms. Donna Novak sought leave under the FMLA, citing back pain and her daughter’s post-partum depression, and was terminated for exceeding the number of allowable absences. Ms. Novak brought suit, in part, arguing she was entitled to additional leave because the FMLA authorizes leave to care for a child 18 years of age or older who is suffering from a serious health condition and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability. The court applied the ADA’s definition of disability to Ms. Novak’s daughter and determined that her post-partum depression was temporary and did not substantially limit her ability to care for herself. Because the court did not recognize Ms. Novak’s daughter as having a disability, Ms. Novak was not entitled to additional leave. Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A. 505 F.3d 1173 October 24, 2007 Plaintiff, Ms. Annette Sheely, who is blind, was prohibited from bringing her service dog into the MRI suite when she accompanied her son to his MRI appointment. She brought suit under ADA Title III, and the MRI facility modified its no-animal policy soon afterwards. The court held that plaintiff’s suit was not made moot by the new policy and a new trial will determine whether the no-animal policy violated the ADA. Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. Of Trustees 507 F.3d 1306 November 15, 2007 Plaintiff Patricia Garrett was employed as a nurse by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital. Complications from breast cancer caused her to take full medical leave in 1995. Shortly after returning from leave, she was transferred to a lower-paying position. Ms. Garrett sued under the ADA, alleging discrimination and retaliation. A series of Federal court cases followed. The ADA claim was dropped as barred by sovereign immunity and replaced with a retaliation claim based on the Rehabilitation Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the suit, holding that Ms. Garrett did not show she was a qualified individual with a disability at the time of her transfer, and that she failed to show a causal connection in support of her retaliation claim. Return to Court Cases Listed by Court Case of Additional Interest National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. No. 06-1802 MHP, 2007 WL 2846462 October 2, 2007 Northern District of California Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against Target Corporation, after attempting unsuccessfully to access the Target.com web site using a screen reader. The site lacks “alternative text” to facilitate screen reader software working effectively for persons who are blind or visually impaired. The court certified a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of internet users who are blind under the ADA and under two California civil rights statutes. The court also concluded that the two California statutes apply to the Target.com website as a place of public accommodation. Access to the complete versions of the ‘ADA Case Law Alerts and Briefs’ presented in this paper are available from the Southeast DBTAC at: www.sedbtac.org/legalissues.php?idpg=54&audience=All#CLresults ADA Case Law Developments (2007-2008) Page 2 of 7 1419 Mayson Street, Atlanta, GA 30324 Phone: (404) 541-9001 or (800) 949-4232 (v/tty) Fax: (404) 541-9002 Email: sedbtacproject@law.syr.edu Web: www.sedbtac.org Funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education #H133A060094