An Oklahoma receptionist diagnosed with Lupus less than two months before losing her job to a reduction in force has advanced her state and federal disability bias and retaliation claims against her former employer following a federal district court ruling.
Cynthia Reed, whose position was eliminated and mostly automated just two days after she requested an intermittent leave of absence for medical treatment, can proceed to an April 2014 jury trial on her claims under the ADA, FMLA and Oklahoma’s Anti-Discrimination Act, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled. The case is Reed v. Tetra Tech, Inc., No. CIV-13-542-M (W. Dist. Okla., March 10, 2014).
Facts of the Case
Three weeks after Reed informed her supervisor that she had a disability that required a computer screen filter to reduce ultraviolet radiation, he informed her that her job was part of an RIF and replaced her primary tasks with an automated telephone recording and a sign that said “PLEASE RING BELL FOR SERVICE.”
Tetra Tech alleged in court that the RIF was necessary because the infrastructure central region was experiencing a significant reduction in operating income and did not have adequate work to support existing staffing levels.
Tetra Tech said it eliminated Reed’s position, a full-time receptionist/administrative assistant, because it wanted to reduce the administrative overhead cost of its Oklahoma City office, which had the highest cost structure when compared to typical staffing levels for offices of similar or larger size.
The decision to terminate Reed, made by a senior vice president in the Houston office, purportedly reflected the company’s shift to operating without a receptionist and using a fully automated system that routes callers and guests to other staff, as it does in Houston.
Tetra Tech alleged that it made the termination decision before Reed completed a certification of healthcare provider form and notified HR and her supervisor that she would need an unspecified amount of intermittent leave in the future. Reed stated on the leave of absence request form that her need for leave was “unknown — will vary with treatment and health condition.”
Tetra Tech further asserted that:
- Reed’s supervisor was not involved in the RIF decision;
- Reed failed to present any evidence that her inclusion in the RIF was because of her claimed disability;
- the RIF decision maker, did not know of Reed’s claimed medical condition or her request for an accommodation at any time before his decision to include Reed in the RIF; and
- Reed’s supervisor did not know that Reed had requested an accommodation for her disability.
Court Weighs in
The district court denied summary judgment on all counts to Tetra Tech and found that Reed had presented sufficient evidence, “albeit barely,” to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her supervisor: (1) was involved in the decision to include Reed in the RIF; and (2) knew that Reed had a disability and had requested an accommodation for her disability.
Specifically, the court said it was persuaded by Reed’s testimony that her former boss, during the termination meeting, said that “he and others had decided on the reduction of force, on letting me go due to a reduction in force.”
In addition, the court permitted the case to proceed because Reed’s supervisor had signed an RIF justification sheet following the termination, and that approximately three weeks before Reed was terminated, her supervisor, according to Reed’s testimony, knew that her disability required a computer screen filter to provide UV protection from the light.
Employer Takeaways
The Reed case demonstrates the importance of having good, consistent documentary evidence to explain when and why particular employees and positions are included in a RIF. Employers should develop a RIF plan and identify the most appropriate individuals to decide which employees will be affected.
In selecting decision-makers for a RIF, an employer should remember that such individuals may ultimately be witnesses in any ADA- or FMLA-related litigation arising from the layoff. Accordingly, the employer should attempt to involve persons who possess the greatest knowledge of the affected employees and who, if necessary, can persuasively articulate the reason for the selections.
An employer should conduct briefing sessions with RIF decision makers and provide written guidelines for the layoff procedures. In addition, RIF decision makers should be educated regarding ADA and FMLA considerations.
For the complete article, please visit the HR Compliance Expert website.
1 thought on “Downsized Employee with Lupus Advances ADA, FMLA Claims”