Skip to main content

A Disability Does Not Necessarily Excuse an Employee's Misconduct


Schaffhauser v. United Parcel Service - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Christopher Schaffhauser ("Schaffhauser"), a white male, worked for United Parcel Service ("UPS") as a manager.  In February 2012, Schaffhauser was talking with Neal Sharkey (an African-American manager), Quentin Goodwin (an African-American supervisor), and Harold Williams (an African-American supervisor).  Goodwin allegedly said "I wish Rodney Barefield would take a swing at me and I would knock that motherf**r out."  Schaffhauser then commented "If he ever hit me, I would hit him so hard it'd knock the black off him."   Although Schaffhauser acknowledged the comment and admitted it could be construed as racist, he claimed he was joking and did not intend it to be racist.

In a report to the human resources director, Schaffhauser claimed his medical condition was a "contributing factor in [his] poor choice of words."  The human resources director demoted Schaffhauser from manager to supervisor and Schaffhauser subsequently brought suit against UPS on the grounds of reverse race discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS.

Holding:  In regard to the failure to accommodate claim, the Court noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") prohibits an employer from discriminating "against a qualified individual on the basis of a disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment."  In order to succeed on his claim, Schaffhauser was required to show (1) he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he was a qualified individual under the ADA; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment decision because of his disability.  

In this case, Schaffhauser claimed a steroid shot he received before he made his comment caused changes to his physical and neurological condition, including high blood pressure, mood swings, and increased irritability.  As a result, Schaffhauser claimed this physical and mental impairment limited a major life activity, interacting with others.  

However, the Court noted Schaffhauser never requested UPS provide him with an accommodation and never informed UPS about the "relevant details" of his disability until after the fact.  In particular, as the district court had pointed out, liability on the employer is not established where "an employee engages in misconduct, learns of an impending adverse employment action, and then informs his employer of a disability that is the supposed cause of the prior misconduct and requests an accommodation."  In essence, Schaffhauser's attempt to identify his medical condition and the alleged failure of UPS to accommodate it until after the racially charged comment was made was "too little, too late." 

Judgment:  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of UPS in regard to Schaffhauser's failure to accommodate claim.  Schaffhauser's failure to notify UPS of a disability and failure to request an accommodation until after he made his racially charged comment ultimately doomed Schaffhauser's ability to prevail on his claim.

The Takeaway:  This is a classic case of an employee attempting to cover for their conduct after it already occurs...and a court holding that it is indeed "too little, too late."  As the Court held, an employer is not required to excuse misconduct when an employee claims, for the first time after the misconduct occurs, that the misconduct was a result of a disability.  Had Schaffhauser made UPS aware of his disability beforehand or requested an accommodation before he engaged in his misconduct, I think this case might have a different outcome.  However, as this Court suggested, an employer is not a mind reader and will not necessarily be forced to guess if an employee has a disability...or offer an accommodation, if one is not actually requested.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Benton

Date:  July 23, 2015

Opinion:  media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/07/141279P.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