Examples of Recent Lawsuits Brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
These can illustrate the difficulties facing employers, employees and courts in ADA cases.
Union Pacific Railroad had a “1% Rule,” which stated that employees could not hold safety-related jobs if there was a 1% chance per year that they could suddenly be incapacitated. The rule was held by a court to be invalid because they did not perform individual personal assessments, so it discriminated against disabled people. (A jury awarded the filing employee nearly $27 million, which was upheld on appeal.)
A construction company refused to hire an applicant who was taking methadone to combat an opium addiction. (Other applicants had been similarly affected.) This amounted to use of “unlawful selection criteria and unlawful pre-employment medical inquiry, per the EEOC lawsuit. (The outcome of the lawsuit is unknown at this time, but it does not look good for the employer.)
A former employee of a disability employment staffing firm [emphasis added] was denied unpaid leave to attend twice-a-week depression and anxiety treatments. She was granted leave once per week. Later, after she had attempted suicide, while in the hospital, she requested 4-6 weeks of unpaid leave. The lawsuit claimed that management did not respond but just terminated her instead – a violation of the ADA. (Same comment as above, based upon similar lawsuits.)
A personal shopper for Wal-Mart suffered non-work-related injuries in an accident; they required surgery, and she was granted unpaid leave. Upon her return, she was given a light duty position due to medical restrictions. Not long after that, she suffered a non-work-related concussion and had to miss work again.
She had no vacation or sick leave left but asked Wal-Mart to excuse her absences. The store refused and terminated her for excessive absences. She sued, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation. Wal-Mart failed to engage in an “informal, interactive process,” which might weaken their case. (Outcome not known at this time.)
Ironically-named Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Company hired a woman as a store merchandiser. She walked with a limp due to MS medication that had caused deterioration in her hip cartilage. After being on the job for six weeks, she was required to take a physical agility test. She was the only new hire required to take the test before the end of a 90-day probationary period, according to the EEOC. Test results indicated she met all four job-specific requirements, but noted she had decreased strength in her hip, gait abnormalities and difficulty squatting. Following the test, Cheerwine placed the employee on unpaid leave and fired her the same day, according to the complaint. The next day, she provided a doctor’s note clearing her for work, but Cheerwine allegedly rejected the note and told her she had been terminated.
EEOC sued Cheerwine for firing her (1) because of her disability and (2) because it regarded her as disabled, both which are ADA violations. EEOC further alleged that the agility test was essentially an impermissible medical test prohibited under the ADA. The fact that she had successfully performed her job up to that point further undercut Cheerwine’s invalid position (not to mention their name).
An employee of a Bojangles restaurant claimed the employer violated three different laws in terminating her. She was pregnant and has sickle-cell anemia. On the basis of the anemia, she requested to be allowed to work six-hour shifts instead of the standard eight-hour shifts. That request was denied. Thereafter, she told the manager that she was pregnant. One week after that, she was told that she was “not a good fit for the restaurant because [she has] sickle cell and [is] pregnant,” at which point she was terminated. The EEOC lawsuit states that Bojangles violated Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; failed to accommodate her and retaliated against her in violation of the ADA; and failed to accommodate her pregnancy and retaliated against her in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. At no point did they attempt an interactive process with her. (That appears to be three strikes, but the case is still pending.)