Skip to main content

Temporary Disabilities Protected Under the ADA


Summers v. Altarum Institute, Corp. - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Summers was a senior analyst for a government contractor and requested permission to work remotely while he recovered from an October 2011 accident that left him incapacitated, with fractures in both legs.  Doctors prohibited Summers from putting any weight on his left leg for six weeks and predicted he would not walk normally for at least seven months.  Summers sent e-mails to his supervisors and the contractor he was working with and sought advice on how to return to work.  He initially suggested he take short term disability for a few weeks, then start working remotely from home part time, with an eventual increase in his hours until he was full time again.  However, the company refused to engage Summers in negotiations about working from home.  Effective at the start of December 2011, Summers was fired.

Summers filed an ADA discrimination claim for the discharge.  Altarum filed a motion to dismiss and the District Court granted the motion on the grounds that Summers was not a "qualified person with a disability" because, although he was physically impaired, a "temporary condition, even up to a year, does not fall within the purview of the [A]ct".  As a result, the District Court held Summers was not disabled, under the definition provided by the ADA.

Holding:  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Altarum's motion to dismiss.  The Court recognized that Congress broadened the definition of "disability" by enacting the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).  As a result, the "effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting" for purposes of proving an actual disability, if they are "sufficiently severe."  In this case, the Court recognized that the serious impairment alleged by Summers was severe enough to qualify.  

Consequently, employers need to be aware that temporary disabilities are protected under the ADA, and act accordingly or risk being exposed to liability for failure to comply with the Act.  

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court's dismissal of Summers's wrongful discharge claim, holding that an impairment is not categorically excluded from being a disability, simply because it is temporary. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Motz

Date:  January 23, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/131645.P.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more