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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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