When the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) was implemented and the revised regulations took effect, employers began bracing for changes. We have actively monitored the much-publicized multi-million dollar settlements relating to disability claims and predicted that employee-friendly judicial decisions would follow suit. Yet, with the backlog of pre-ADAAA cases still working their way through the court systems, many of the decisions issued over the past two years have still been decided under the former standards.
However, two recent United States District Court decisions offer a glimpse of the type of employee-friendly cases to come.
Beair v. Summit Polymers (E.D. Ky, Aug 13, 2013)
While not particularly notable for its outcome, which granted in part and denied in part the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the Beair opinion serves as an excellent reminder that the employee’s disability is no longer the focus of ADA claims. In finding that the plaintiff was disabled under the ADA, the Court heavily quoted language from the ADAAA:
The ADA provides that the definition of disability “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals…” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A). In passing the ADAAA, Congress intended to “reinstat[e] a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA” and to reject the “inappropriately high” standards for interpreting the term “substantially limits” created by two Supreme Court decisions: Sutton v. United Air Lines, and Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002). ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110–325, 122. Stat. 3553, § 2 (2008). Congress stated that, as a result of these decisions, “lower courts have incorrectly found in individual cases that people with a range of substantially limiting impairments are not people with disabilities.” ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110–315, § 2(a)(6).
Beair v. Summit Polymers at *2 (emphasis added).
The Court also extensively cited the implementing regulations, as further support that determining whether a plaintiff is disabled does not require any extensive analysis:
The primary purpose of the ADAAA is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the Amendments Act’s purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability. The question of whether an individual meets the definition of disability under this part should not demand extensive analysis. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.1(c)(4) (emphasis added).
Beair v. Summit Polymers at *3 (emphasis added). Thus, the district court had no trouble concluding that the plaintiff was disabled based upon evidence that she had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Heatherly v. Portillo’s Hot Dogs, Inc. (N. D. Illinois, July 19, 2013)
Heatherly v. Portillo’s Hot Dogs, Inc., a recent decision from the Northern District of Illinois, confirms that we may begin to see the ADAAA being used to protect pregnant employees and other employees with temporary conditions. As with the Beair decision, this case is notable for its analysis of the plaintiff’s alleged disability, rather than for its outcome.
In Heatherly, the plaintiff was pregnant and presented documentation from her physician placing her on “light duty” due to her high risk pregnancy. The plaintiff alleged that she could not work in excess of 6-8 hours and that she was restricted from heavy lifting. Her employer argued that these restrictions did not substantially limit the employee’s major life activities because they were only temporary. The employee cited to the ADAAA regulations, noting that “[t]he effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting…” Heatherly at *6.
While the Court ultimately granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment in this case due to the employee’s failure to present medical documentation of the need for the requested accommodation, the Court flatly rejected the employer’s argument that the temporary nature of the employee’s condition should not qualify for ADA protection. In so ruling, the Court found the employee presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether her temporary lifting restrictions (due to her high risk pregnancy) rendered her disabled.
Points to Consider
These decisions remind us that cases arising under the ADAAA will represent a significant departure from pre-Amendment Act cases. Employers facing requests for reasonable accommodation should focus efforts on determining whether any accommodation exists that would allow the employee to continue working, rather than requiring volumes of documentation concerning the employee’s alleged disability. Documenting the numerous options discussed with the employee and evaluated during the interactive process is critical in every ADAAA case and can significantly reduce liability.
If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Gonzalez at jgonzalez@wp.hallrender.com or 248-457-7840, Steve Lyman at slyman@wp.hallrender.com or 317-977-1422 or your regular Hall Render attorney.
