Skip to main content

Is Social Anxiety a "Disability" Under the ADA? Possibly...


Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Christina Jacobs ("Jacobs") worked at a North Carolina courthouse and was soon promoted to be one of thirty deputy clerks assigned to assist customers at the front counter.  However, Jacobs suffered from social anxiety disorder and other related mental illnesses.  After training began, Jacobs experienced extreme stress, nervousness, and panic attacks.  When Jacobs approached her supervisor with concerns, the supervisor advised Jacobs to seek treatment from her physician, which she did. 

Four months later, Jacobs sent her supervisors an e-mail, disclosed her disability again and requested an accommodation.  Jacobs was told she would have to wait for a different supervisor to return from a three week vacation before the problem could be addressed.  Apparently, the vacationing supervisor only received one call while on vacation.  An assistant called to report that Jacobs was spotted sleeping at her desk.  When the supervisor returned from vacation, Jacobs was terminated.

Jacobs subsequently sued and alleged, among other things, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Clerk's Office.

Holding:  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and held that a jury could conclude both that Jacobs was disabled (within the meaning of the ADA) and that Jacob's disability was the cause of her discharge because her supervisor knew of her accommodation request prior to the termination. 

In particular, the Court noted that the other twenty five or so clerks performed work that did not require interaction with the public at the front counter.  As a result, there was a factual dispute whether working the front counter was actually an essential function of Jacob's position.  Consequently, Jacob's request to work the counter less frequently was a reasonable accommodation that could have been made (or at least raised a triable fact issue to put before a jury). 

As for any arguments by the Clerk's Office that Jacobs was terminated for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, the Court of Appeals did not buy that argument.  The Clerk's Office had little to no documentation of Jacob's alleged poor performance, beyond witnesses to testified that Jacob's had performance issues and was a poor employee long before she was assigned to the front counter. 

Judgment:  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the Clerk's Office and held that there are triable issues of fact that Jacobs should present to a jury on her ADA disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate claims.

The Takeaway:  As others have noted, this case is paramount if for no other reason than to remind employers to never assume that an employee's medical condition does not qualify as a disability.  While the Court did not directly pinpoint social anxiety as a disability under the ADA, there was certainly enough reasoning and logic to allow this question to be put before a jury.  

As well, in this instance, the employer made a detrimental mistake of not taking adequate steps to accommodate an employee who asked for an accommodation.  (In fact, little if anything was done to accommodate the employee before she was fired).  Had (any) steps been taken to accommodate the employee and the alleged disability, after the accommodation request had been made, the employer would have been in a more favorable position before steps were taken to terminate the employee.  

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Floyd

Date:  March 12, 2015 

Opinion:  www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/132212.P.pdf

Comments

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

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

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