Good recordkeeping and documentation is key in defending employment discrimination claims, a recent court ruling illustrates.
An employee terminated for performance problems alleged that he was fired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because of his wife’s disability. The employer, however, produced evidence showing that: (1) the employee’s performance was subpar; (2) he was placed on a performance improvement plan; and (3) he was terminated after his performance did not improve.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, decided against the employee based on this evidence. The employee worked as an inventory control manager for a pharmacy. His wife had Type I diabetes and a heart condition. The pharmacy was aware of his wife’s conditions from the beginning of his employment, and a few months into his tenure, the employee missed several days of work when his wife underwent a cardiac procedure. A few months later, he missed a meeting when his wife had a doctor’s appointment.
Shortly thereafter, the employee was placed on a performance improvement plan and warned that if his performance did not improve, he would be fired. After two months and several more meetings regarding his poor performance, the employee was fired.
He sued, alleging that the pharmacy discriminated against him based on his association with an individual with a disability, in violation of ADA. The pharmacy moved for summary judgment, and the court granted it on both claims.
ADA Association Claim
ADA prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s association with an individual with a disability.
To prove this type of discrimination, the court explained that the employer needed to show that:
1) he was qualified for the position;
2) he was subject to an adverse employment action;
3) he was known to have a relative with a disability; and
4) the adverse employment action occurred under a circumstance that raises a reasonable inference that the disability of the relative was a determining factor in the decision.
The employee, however, could not satisfy the fourth prong — or even establish a question of fact about it — the court found. He argued that because the pharmacy was aware of his wife’s conditions, a jury could conclude that the employer fired him to avoid having him take time off for her. However, he produced no evidence that could “raise a reasonable inference” that his wife’s disability was a determining factor in his termination, as the fourth prong requires.
He also argued that his wife’s expenses were “extraordinarily expensive” and that the pharmacy fired him to avoid having her on its health plan. But again, he offered no evidence to support this — “no invoices, no payment stubs, nothing that shows her expenses in relation to other employee health care expenses, no evidence at all,” the court said.
The court also noted that even if the employee had satisfied all four prongs required to proceed with an ADA association claim, the pharmacy would still be entitled to summary judgment because it would be able to refute his allegations with a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for his termination: poor performance.
It was well-documented that the employee missed deadlines; failed to complete certain tasks after being reminded to do so; and failed to gain the requisite technical knowledge for his position.