Articles Posted in Disability Discrimination

Last month, in Gibbs v. Caswell-Massey, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled that Linda Gibbs could proceed with her disability discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Caswell-Massey. Caswell-Massey is a luxury bath and body products company in Edison, New Jersey. It hired Ms. Gibbs in 1993 . She was gradually promoted through the company’s ranks, and eventually became its Corporate Manager, Retail Stores and International Sales.

In 2000, Ms. Gibbs’s doctor diagnosed her with sleep apnea. This disability causes Ms. Gibbs fatigue, and often makes it difficult for her to stay awake at work. For example, she occasionally nods off at her desk. Caswell-Massey warned Ms. Gibbs on several occasions that her unexcused absences, sleeping, and poor job performance were unacceptable, and that she could be fired if she had any further performance issues. Nonetheless, Ms. Gibbs received an overall performance rating of “above overall expectations” in both 2005 and 2006.

In November 2006, Ms. Gibbs took a four-week disability leave to have hernia surgery. The company fired her two days after she returned to work. It claims its decision to fire was based on information it received from Steven Culter during Ms. Gibbs’s disability leave. Mr. Cutler was business partners with Ms. Gibbs’ husband. He and Mr. Gibbs apparently worked together at the Route 18 flea market in East Brunswick, New Jersey. Mr. Cutler claimed that Ms. Gibbs was stealing products from Caswell-Massey, and her husband was selling them at the flea market. He eventually provided the company with photographs of Caswell-Massey’s products that he was selling at the flea market, a copy of a book with Gibbs’s handwriting that listed prices for Caswell-Massey products, and his own sworn statement claiming Ms. Gibbs admitted she had taken products from Caswell-Massey.

Caswell-Massey investigated Mr. Cutler’s allegations. During the investigation, Ms. Gibbs claimed she did not know her husband was selling Caswell-Massey products at the flea market. She also claimed that Mr. Cutler was blackmailing her, and provided evidence including threatening voicemail messages that Mr. Cutler had left her. Caswell-Massey suspended Ms. Gibbs without pay while it conducted its investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, it fired Ms. Gibbs, supposedly because she had violated the non-compete provision in her employment contract.

The trial court dismissed Ms. Gibbs’s case, including her claim that Caswell-Massey fired her because of her disability in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). It ruled that she did not have enough evidence to prove that Caswell-Massey’s explanation for firing her was a pretext, or excuse, for discrimination.

The Appellate Division disagreed. It held that a reasonable jury could believe that Caswell-Massey discriminated against Ms. Gibbs, based on evidence supporting the conclusion that the company conducted an inept and cursory investigation, relied on Mr. Cutler’s statements even though he was a biased and questionable source, and ignored Ms. Gibbs’ 13 year history with the company, in addition to the lack of evidence that Ms. Gibbs’ husband ever sold a single Caswell-Massey product. However, the Court also indicated that a jury could come to the opposite conclusion, and could find that the company fired Ms. Gibbs because she violated her non-compete agreement. As a result, the Appellate Division sent the case back to the trial court, so a jury can decide whether Ms. Gibbs has proved that Caswell-Massey illegally discriminated against her.

Continue reading

Last week, I discussed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)’s new regulations regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) which discuss the newly broadened scope of the ADA, and the terms “major life activity” and “substantially limited.” In this article, I will focus on ADAAA regulations that cover the concept of “mitigating measures” for disabilities, and how to prove that an employee has a “record of” a disability or is “regarded as” having a disability.

What Are “Mitigating Measures,” and When Can They Be Taken Into Consideration Under the ADAAA?

Under the ADAAA, most “mitigating measures” must be ignored when determining whether an individual is disabled include. A mitigating measure is something that reduces or minimizes the limitations caused by a disability. Examples of mitigating measures include medication, medical equipment and devices, prosthetic limbs, low vision devices, hearing aids, mobility devices, oxygen therapy equipment, use of assistive technology, reasonable accommodations, learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications, psychotherapy, behavioral therapy, and physical therapy.

However, the new ADAAA regulations indicate it is appropriate to consider the negative side effects of a mitigating measure when determining whether an individual is disabled. Similarly, it is proper to consider a mitigating measure when deciding whether an employee is qualified for his job, or is entitled to a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

What Does it Mean to Have a “Record of” a Disability?

In addition to protecting individuals who are actually disabled, the ADA protects individuals with a “record of” a disability. Under the new ADAAA regulations, someone has a record of a disability if he previously had an impairment that substantially limited him in a major life activity, or was misclassified as having an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.

What Does it Mean to Be “Regarded as” Having a Disability?
The ADAAA also protects individuals who are “regarded as” being disabled. According to the new regulations, this includes any employee whose employer correctly or incorrectly believed he has an impairment, unless the employer reasonably believed the impairment was both minor and expected to last for six months or less. Unlike the previous ADA regulations, under the new regulations an employer does not have to believe the impairment substantially limited the employee’s ability to perform a major life activity to regard an employee as disabled.

Continue reading

As I previously discussed, protection for disabled employees was vastly expanded on January 1, 2009, when the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), a law expanding the scope of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), went into effect. On March 25, 2011, the United States Equal Employment Commission (EEOC) established its final regulations clarifying the ADAAA. Courts generally must follow these regulations unless they are inconsistent with the ADAAA.

Below, I discuss some of the regulations regarding the scope of the ADAAA, and the terms “major life activity” and “substantially limited.” Next week, I will discus additional regulations that explain when an employer can consider “mitigating measures” for disabilities, and how to prove that someone is covered by the ADA because he has a “record of” a disability or is “regarded as” having a disability.

The Scope of the ADAAA
The new regulations make it clear that the ADAAA is intended to broaden the definition of the term “disability” and to make it easier for employees to meet that definition. The ADA still covers individuals who have (1) an actual physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” a “major life activity;” (2) a “record of” such an impairment, and (3) are “regarded as” having an impairment. However, the meanings of those terms have been broadened significantly.

What is a “Major Life Activity” Under the ADAAA
The regulations explain that the term “major life activity” includes caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working.

Some impairments almost always are considered disabilities. Examples include deafness, blindness, intellectual disability (formerly known as mental retardation), partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring use of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia.

What Does it Mean to “Substantially Limit” a Major Life Activity?
The regulations say the term “substantially limits” should be interpreted broadly and does not necessarily require an individual to be severely or significantly limited. Generally, the focus should be on whether the employer discriminated against the employee, not on whether the employee meets the definition of disabled.

They also say that, when determining whether the impairment is a disability, you can consider the condition, duration, and manner in which an individual can perform a major life activity. They further clarify that an impairment can be covered by the ADAAA even if it lasts less than six months, is episodic, or is in remission. For example, episodic impairments like epilepsy, hypertension, asthma, diabetes, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, and cancer in remission, all can be impairments under the ADAAA.

Continue reading

In a recent federal employment law decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that side effects of medication or other medical treatment can constitute an impairment within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA is a federal law which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because they are disabled.

To be protected by the ADA, an employee must prove he has a disability, as defined by the statute. Usually, an employee proves he is disabled by showing that his disability substantially limits his ability to perform a major life activity. Major life activities include caring for yourself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

In Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, the Third Circuit ruled that employees can also prove they are disabled by showing that the effects of their medication or other medical treatment substantially impair a major life activity.

Earlier this year, New Jersey amended its Law Against Discrimination to expressly include “autism spectrum disorders” in its definition of disability. This means it is unlawful for New Jersey employers to discriminate against employees because they are autistic, unless the company can show that the autistic employee cannot perform the essential functions of his or her job, even with a reasonable accommodation. It also means that employers must provide reasonable accommodations for employees who are autistic.

The Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because they belong to legally protected categories. In addition to disabilities, other legally protected categories include age, race, national origin, gender, pregnancy, and religion.

This amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination was based on an October 8, 2009 report from the Adults with Autism Task Force.

In two previous articles, I discussed important rulings the Third Circuit Court of Appeals made in Erdman v. Nationwide Insurance Company regarding the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Specifically, that case rules that an employee’s time worked from home counts toward the FMLA’s 1,250 hour eligibility requirement if the employer knew or should have known the employee was working off-site, and that an employee who requests an FMLA leave is legally protected even if he never actually takes a leave. But Erdman also makes an important ruling regarding another, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of a disability. It includes a provision prohibiting employers from discriminating against individuals because they have a relationship or association with someone who has a disability. For example, it prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee who has a disabled child.

As Erdman notes, although the ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to allow employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs, it does not require employers to accommodate employees who have a disabled relative. As a result, employers can refuse to provide an employee time off to care for a disabled relative without violating the ADA. Of course, doing so could violate the FMLA or a state law such as the New Jersey Family Leave Act.

Today, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 into law. As previously discussed, the Act restores the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the ADA), and is intended to increase protection for disabled employees from discrimination. Among other things, it substantially expands the definition of disability and greatly increases the number of disabled individuals who are protected against discrimination in employment and places of public accommodation. The ADA Amendments Act will go into effect on January 1, 2009.

The United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 on June 25, 2008, and the United States Senate unanimously approved a slightly different version of the Act on September 11, 2008. The House of Representatives then approved the Senate’s version of the Act on September 17. Later that day, the White House released the following statement:

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is instrumental in allowing individuals with disabilities to fully participate in our economy and society, and the Administration supports efforts to enhance its protections. The Administration believes that the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which has just passed Congress, is a step in that direction, and is encouraged by the improvements made to the bill during the legislative process. The President looks forward to signing the ADAAA into law.

On September 11, 2008, the Senate unanimously voted in favor of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. If it were to become law, the Act would “restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990” (the ADA) by protecting many more disabled individuals from discrimination. The ADA is a federal employment law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, both in the context of employment and places of public accommodation such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors’ offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. However, the ADA has been interpreted so narrowly that the vast majority of cases brought under it are dismissed, primarily because the individuals suing are unable to meet the statute’s definition of”disability.”

As discussed in a previous article, on June 25, 2008 the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a slightly different version of the ADA Amendments Act, called the ADA Restoration Act. If the House of Representatives approves the Senate’s version of the Act, which seems likely, then the President would need to sign it into law before it would go into effect.

The ADA Amendments Act would reverse many United States Supreme Court cases which have interpreted the ADA narrowly and limited the scope of its protection. For example, it would amend the ADA to make it clear that:

House of Representatives Approves Amendments to Restore the Americans With Disabilities Act to Protect Disabled Employees From Discrimination.

On June 25, 2008, the United States House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) by a vote of 402 to 17. The ADA is a federal law which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, both in the context of employment and places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors’ offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. However, courts have interpreted the ADA so narrowly that according to at least one study over 97% of cases filed under the ADA are dismissed, primarily due to the fact that the individual bringing the case could not meet the statute’s definition of “disability.”

The United States Senate still has not voted on the bill, which is known as the ADA Restoration Act of 2008. If the Senate were to approve the Act, it would need to be signed into law by the President before it would go into effect.

On May 21, 2008, President Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA”) of 2008. The statute had previously passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a 414 to 1 vote. Upon the President signing it, GINA went into effect immediately.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. Congress passed it in recognition that there are great opportunities for medical advancement from sequencing the human genome and other genetic advances. However, those advances are threatened by the potential for employers and health insurance companies to misuse genetic information to discriminate. Congress noted the historical discrimination and oppression of individuals who were presumed to have genetic defects, specifically mentioning mental retardation, mental disease, epilepsy, blindness, and hearing loss in the statute. Congress also recognized the prevalence of genetic discrimination in the workplace.

As it applies to the context of the workplace, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act makes it unlawful to use genetic information as a reason to refuse to hire or fire, or to discriminate against any employee with respect to compensation or other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. It also prohibits employers from using genetic information to limit, segregate, or classify employees in a way that deprives employees of job opportunities, or otherwise adversely affects them. With limited exceptions, it also prohibits employers from seeking genetic information regarding an employee or a family member.