Can workers who swear to be totally disabled on an application for Social Security benefits turn around and sue you under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), contending they’re qualified to work despite their disability claim? Two recent court decisions – one from the United States Supreme Court and the other involving a Northern California employer – have held that claiming total disability on a benefits application does not necessarily block a worker from bringing an ADA lawsuit against an employer who fires or refuses to hire or accommodate the person.
Stroke Victim Says She Can’t Work
The Supreme Court case involved Carolyn Cleveland, who worked for Policy Management Systems Corporation. Cleveland suffered a stroke that affected her concentration, memory and language skills, and she was eventually terminated. She filed an application for Social Security disability benefits, stating that she was totally disabled and that her employer had terminated her because she could no longer do her job. While her application was pending, Cleveland sued Policy Management Systems for disability discrimination. She claimed that she was qualified to do her job and that the company refused her accommodation request for special training and additional time to complete her work. But Policy Management argued that Cleveland had already conceded in her Social Security application that she was totally disabled and unable to work – therefore she should not be allowed to claim the opposite in court.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Statements Not Fatal To ADA Case
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Cleveland’s seemingly inconsistent positions could be reconciled because her Social Security application didn’t take into account whether she could perform her job with a reasonable accommodation – the standard under the ADA. The court said that employees in Cleveland’s position must be given a chance to explain any seeming discrepancies in their statements and to show how an accommodation by their employer could enable them to work.
Changing Stories
The problem of inconsistent statements arose in another recent case, but with a different twist involving a dispute over fitness-for-duty tests. January Fredenburg, a mental health treatment specialist with the Contra Costa County Department of Health Services, was diagnosed as suffering from paranoia and placed on indefinite leave without pay. She then filed for state disability benefits, claiming she was unable to work. After six months, the state terminated her benefits because it said she was capable of returning to her job. She appealed, contending she was still unable to do her regular work. When the state would not restore her benefits, Fredenburg changed her story and asked the county to allow her to come back to work.
Fitness-For-Duty Exam Requested
Before agreeing to reinstate her, the county required Fredenburg to undergo a fitness-for-duty exam to evaluate whether she was a danger to herself or others; whether she could function in her position; whether she still had a psychiatric impairment; and if so, whether it limited her activities of daily living; and what treatment plan, if any, was recommended. Fredenburg balked and sued the county under the ADA for refusing to reinstate her. She also said that the medical exam was too broad and should be limited to determining whether and when she could safely return to work.
Inconsistent Statement Not Fraud
The county responded by arguing that Fredenburg was bound by her statements to the state that she was disabled and incapable of doing her regular work, and therefore her case should be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal refused to throw out the case. It said Fredenburg should be allowed to show she was able to perform the functions of her position. Since the ADA and state disability rules have different definitions of disability, contradictory statements would block an employee’s ADA claim only if they were so blatant as to show the person was “playing fast and loose with the court” or committing fraud which, the court decided, was not the case here. The appeals court also said any worker, disabled or not, can challenge the legality of a fitness-for-duty exam, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide whether the exam request by the county was “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
Practical Impact
In most cases, the best approach when a disabled employee asks to be reinstated is to determine whether there’s a reasonable accommodation that will allow the person to do the job – even if you learn that they claimed, in an insurance or benefits application, to be unable to work. Consider a fitness-for-duty test if there’s doubt about the person’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job. But always limit the scope of the exam and keep all medical information strictly confidential. Note that in the Contra Costa County case, the court suggested, but left for the jury to ultimately decide, that the county had demonstrated job-relatedness and business necessity in its fitness-for-duty request.