Skip to main content

Employee Fails to Disclose Disability Until After They Are Fired? Good Luck With That ADA Claim...


Lucas v. Gregg Appliances, Inc. - United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western District


Facts:  Chris Lucas ("Lucas") suffered from paruesis (shy bladder syndrome).  As a result, he claimed he could not urinate in public bathrooms and would hold his bladder throughout the work day to avoid having to use the bathroom at work.  Lucas's employer, Gregg Appliances ("Gregg") maintained a drug free workplace which required periodic drug testing of employees.  

When Luis was promoted to general manager, the position was contingent upon him passing a drug test.  When Lucas could not complete the drug test (because of his shy bladder), the testing clinic reported to Greg "PER COLLECTOR:  DONOR LEFT COLLECTION SITE BEFORE COMPLETION OF DRUG TEST."  When management confronted Lucas, he did not mention his difficulty urinating or his paruresis.  Lucas did not vist a physician for the condition until the day after Gregg fired him for failing o take the required drug test. 

Lucas subsequently brought an Americans with Disabilities ("ADA") claim against Gregg on the grounds that he was terminated because of his disability and Gregg failed to accommodate the disability.  Both parties moved for summary judgment. 

Holding:  The District Court granted Gregg's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it had no knowledge of Lucas's disability.  The facts demonstrated that Lucas never told anyone at Gregg about his disability before taking the drug test or even after he failed to complete the test.  In fact, Lucas only informed Gregg about his disability after he was terminated.  As the Court noted, when a disability is not obvious, the burden is on the employee to make the employer aware of the disability. 

In addition, the Court held that the burden rested with the employee to request a reasonable accommodation.  In this instance, Lucas failed to request a reasonable accommodation until after he had been terminated.  As the Court held, when an employee fails to request a reasonable accommodation during his employment, he cannot later complain that the employer failed to provide an accommodation.

Judgment:  The Court granted Gregg's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it had no knowledge of Lucas's disability and Lucas's failure to inform his employer of his disability and request a reasonable accommodation doomed his ADA claim. 

The Takeaway:  Employees take note, if you do not make your employer aware of a disability and request a reasonable accommodation, your ADA claim is likely to fail.  As this Court noted, the ADA does not require the employer to "guess" and play detective as to what disabilities their employees suffer from.  Note, whichever party fails to take part in a conversation about the disability and the accommodation is likely to be staring at the barrel of an ADA suit. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Black

Date:  April 15, 2015

Opinion:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2501102956069465697

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