Skip to main content

Firefighter Afraid of Enterning Burning Building Brings ADA Claim: No Disability Discrimination


City of Houston v. Proler - Texas Supreme Court


Facts: Shayn Proler was a firefighter with the Houston fire department.  After a fellow firefighter complained that Proler refused to enter a burning apartment building, Proler was reassigned to the firefighter training academy for a period of time.  Proler was later transferred back to the firefighter crew and experienced an incident at a house fire in which he was unable to take orders and had difficulty walking.  After he was taken to a hospital, he was diagnosed with "global transient amnesia."  A short time later, Proler was again assigned to the training academy.

Proler filed an administrative grievance and sought to be reassigned to the firefighter crew.  After an administrative appeal judge sided with Proler, the City of Houston appealed to a trial court and Proler counter sued for disability discrimination under state and federal law.  At trial, a jury found the City had discriminated against Proler because of his disability when he was reassigned to the training academy.  On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Proler.  The City of Houston subsequently appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. 

Holding:  The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that Proler's disability was not a motivating factor in the City's decision to reassign Proler to the training academy.  The Supreme Court noted that in determining disability, the issue turned on whether Proler was unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people's everyday lives, not on whether Proler was unable to perform the tasks associated with his particular job.   

The Court held there was no evidence from which a reasonable and fair minded jury could conclude Proler was disabled.  Evidence presented to the jury showed that Proler was apparently unable to provide useful help to his firefighting team during actual fires on at least two occasions because of a fear over entering burning buildings.  The Court reasoned that Proler's inability to set aside the normal fear of entering a burning building was not a mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity (which Proler would need to show in order to prevail on his disability discrimination claim).  

Judgment:  The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that Proler could not prevail upon his disability discrimination claim because he could not establish a disability that impacted the performance of tasks central to a person's everyday life.

The Takeaway:  The Supreme Court got it right here, based upon the record they had.  Having a fear of entering a burning building likely does not amount to a disability that made him unable to perform tasks central to most people's everyday lives.  There was sufficient evidence introduced at the trial court to establish that the disability that Proler complained of was not a determining factor in the City's decision to reassign him to the training academy.      

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Willett

Date:  June 6, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2014/jun/121006.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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more