Suppose an employee’s medical condition prevents them from performing their job. Instead of exploring whether a reasonable accommodation is available, you terminate the employee. And, not surprisingly, you wind up with a disability-bias lawsuit on your hands. But what if it turns out the employee wasn’t disabled in the first place? Can you still be held liable for not having considered a reasonable accommodation? We’ll examine an important new case that answers this question.
Injured Employee Fired
Frederick Kaplan, a city of North Las Vegas peace officer, injured his right hand during a training exercise. Afterward, he couldn’t grip a gun or other objects with that hand. But a few months later, when his recovery didn’t progress, a doctor diagnosed him as having preexisting rheumatoid arthritis. Based on this diagnosis, the city concluded Kaplan’s condition was permanent and fired him. The termination letter explained that grasping a firearm was an essential job function and that Kaplan’s inability to perform it created a risk to himself and others.
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.
Employee Files ADA Lawsuit
Kaplan sued the city, claiming his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the lawsuit was pending, he regained full use of his hand, and a doctor determined Kaplan had never suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. Kaplan nevertheless pursued his lawsuit, relying on an ADA provision that protects nondisabled workers who are “regarded as” being disabled by their employers. Kaplan charged that because the city perceived him as being permanently disabled, it had to provide him with a reasonable accommodation to help him perform the essential duties of his job.
The city argued the ADA doesn’t require employers to accommodate nondisabled employees.
No Accommodation Required
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, agreed with the city and threw out Kaplan’s lawsuit. The court explained the ADA protects workers who are in fact disabled and also prohibits discrimination against individuals—such as Kaplan—who are regarded as having a disabling impairment. But the court went on to say that an employee who is only regarded as being disabled is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation. According to the court, if employers had to accommodate employees who are not truly disabled, limited resources that should be directed to aid disabled individuals would be wasted.
Practical Advice
Although the city was victorious, this case is an important reminder that employers need to work with employees when disability issues arise—especially if termination is considered. After all, had the initial diagnosis the city relied on when it fired Kaplan been accurate, North Las Vegas could have faced significant liability for not exploring possible accommodations for him.
Also, remember that California has its own disability-bias law that protects disabled individuals and those regarded as having a disability. The courts haven’t addressed yet whether state law requires an accommodation of perceived disabilities, but because the state law is considered to be more protective than the ADA, the outcome could be different.
To prevent problems and protect your organization if you’re sued for disability bias, it’s best to go the extra mile to explore reasonable accommodations that may enable an employee with a physical or mental impairment to continue working. Although you may not always be able to avoid a lawsuit, you’ll be in a much better position if the case ends up in court—regardless of whether or not it turns out that the person was actually disabled.