Recently, an employee argued in an association discrimination claim that he was fired because his employer feared he would be distracted at work by his wife’s disability. That excuse didn’t pan out, because in fact the employer was just fed up with the individual’s poor performance, making it a legitimate employment termination.
So in a recent circuit court ruling, the employer’s documentation of the employee’s performance failures saved it from being tagged with an ADA violation for “association discrimination,” under which an individual claims to be a victim of an adverse decision based on his or her relationship with someone who has a disability. It was a case of first impression in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Stansberry v. Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp., 2011 WL 2621901 (6th Cir. July 6, 2011)).
Eugene Stansberry worked as an operations manager for Air Wisconsin. His wife had a rare autoimmune disorder and in 2007, her physician ordered Remicade infusions, which the company’s health plan refused to cover. Stansberry complained about this and appealed the insurance company’s decision.
Around the same time, Air Wisconsin discovered that Stansberry had issued several security violation notices to employees without reporting them to the company’s corporate headquarters. He claimed he was unaware that he was required to do so, but Air Wisconsin said this incident, coupled with the fact that he was failing to operate his location within budget — and had informed his supervisor that he was considering quitting — was grounds for termination.
Stansberry sued, alleging that Air Wisconsin discriminated against him based on his association with a person with a disability, in violation of the ADA. His termination, he alleged, was based on his employer’s fear that he would be distracted at work by his wife’s disability. A district court dismissed his claims.
In appeals court, Stansberry was unable to meet the initial requirements for bringing an ADA association claim. To establish a prima facie case — among other things — the adverse action had to have occurred “under circumstances that raise a reasonable inference that the disability of the relative was a determining factor in the decision.”
To meet that requirement, he argued that the temporal proximity of his wife’s worsening condition and his termination show that his firing was based on his association with her. The court however, said that Air Wisconsin had been aware of her illness for many years, and that undercut his allegation that he was fired based on fears that his wife’s disability might cause him to be inattentive at work.
Even if Stansberry had established a prima facie case, his poor performance was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Air Wisconsin to terminate him, the court said.
“Importantly, while Stansberry’s poor performance at work was likely due to his wife’s illness, that is irrelevant under this provision of the Act,” the court said, noting that it is well-settled that individuals covered only under the law’s association provision are not entitled to reasonable accommodations.