At a credit union in Indiana, employees reported that their CEO had recently become “disorganized, forgetful, and confused.” He seemed disoriented and lost, they said.
|
The board eventually fired him and he sued, alleging that the employer regarded him as disabled and fired him because of that perceived disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Ultimately, however, an appeals court determined that he wasn’t qualified for the job, so he wasn’t protected by the ADA.
Facts of the Case
“James” was president and CEO of Interra Credit Union. His tenure was initially uneventful, according to court documents, but in 2007, an outside consultant determined that employees perceived him as hostile and unpredictable. Employees also began expressing similar concerns directly to HR and the board.
In 2011, James had a cerebral hemorrhage and took 4 months’ leave. When he returned to work, the board hired a consultant to provide him with executive coaching. In early 2012, he received positive evaluations and he received a raise.
Later that year, however, members of upper management repeatedly complained to the board that James’ performance was deteriorating. He seemed to be having trouble focusing and understanding things; he “often functions as if he is lost,” one reported.
When the board met with James to discuss these allegations, it saw first-hand that he could not manage time or address issues effectively, court documents show.
In early 2013, the board fired him. James sued, alleging that the employer had discriminated against him based on a perceived disability. A district court determined that a jury could find that to be true, but it didn’t matter. James was no longer qualified for his position—a prerequisite for bringing a successful ADA claim.
“Interra has provided substantial, uncontested evidence that [James] was not qualified to perform the essential functions of his position at the time he was terminated. [James]’ failure to oppose that evidence precludes a reasonable juror from finding in his favor,” the court said, dismissing his claim.
James appealed but the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling. “Mental changes meant that [James] was no longer able to engage in executive functioning,” it said (Sheets v. Interra Credit Union, No. 16-1440 (Dec. 19, 2016)).
Employer Takeaway
The ADA only protects an individual who is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without an accommodation.
James never raised the accommodation issue in his lawsuit, but the court said it might not have mattered anyway: he only argued that he was “regarded as” disabled, and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 makes clear that an employee who qualifies for the law’s protection only under that prong isn’t entitled to accommodation. (The law protects individuals who have a disability, who have a record of a disability, who are regarded as having a disability, and who are associated with someone with a disability.)
James would have had to show that he had an actual disability, that Interra failed to accommodate him, and that a reasonable, effective accommodation that would have allowed him to perform his job’s essential functions was available.
While it’s generally the employee’s responsibility to request an accommodation, it’s important to note that employers sometimes have to take the first step. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and various courts take the position that if an employer knows that an employee needs assistance at work because of a medical impairment, it can’t ignore that need.
Most recently, the 8th Circuit held that an employer should have attempted to accommodate an employee who had exhausted her Family and Medical Leave Act allotment but was not yet able to perform all of her job duties (Kowitz v. Trinity, No. 15-1584 (8th Cir. Oct. 17, 2016)).
|
|
Kate McGovern Tornone is an editor at BLR. She has almost 10 years’ experience covering a variety of employment law topics and currently writes for