Disability, Leave & Health Management Blog : Attorneys & Lawyers for Employer Legal Protections in Businesses Nationwide

Sometimes a case makes you wonder. Bruce Casanova, a former American Airlines baggage handler, told the jury he lied to American and feigned forgetfulness in an “Article 29F” investigation of his work related injury, and refused to provide a written statement concerning the circumstances of his injury as required by the collective bargaining agreement, according to the Seventh Circuit in Casanova v. American Airlines, Inc.  Nonetheless, the jury awarded him more than $1 million, including $724,000 for punitive damages, on his argument that American terminated him in retaliation for his anticipated workers compensation claim. Which led the Seventh Circuit to wonder: “How could a jury return a verdict in Casanova’s favor, and award more than $1 million, when his discharge is amply supported by undisputed facts?”

The answer, according to the Seventh Circuit, is that “the trial was hijacked by plaintiff’s counsel and used to protest the Article 29F procedure.” The plaintiff focused the jury on the issue of whether American “should order surveillance of employees who claim to be injured, and whether employers should use such surveillance as the basis of interrogation,” according to the Court. “This case never should have reached a jury,” it held, and set aside the jury’s verdict.

The Court noted that “American has a zero-tolerance policy for material lies by its workers [and that] Casanova has not identified any other worker who behaved in a similar fashion at and after an Article 29F hearing and was not fired.” The Court continued: “Indeed, it is almost impossible to conceive that any employee who conducted himself in this fashion would not be fired, by American Airlines or any other employer that wants to maintain the respect and obedience of its labor force.” The Court added that Casanova did not provide any evidence that American’s explanation for his termination was a pretext for unlawful retaliation.

This was the second Seventh Circuit case within three weeks to uphold an employer’s ability to use surveillance to test the bona fides of a workers compensation claim. In the earlier case, Gacek v. American Airlines, Inc., another former baggage handler sued American Airlines for retaliatory discharge in violation of the state workers compensation law. American had hired a detective agency “to check up on” the plaintiff-injured worker, who had called out sick during the December holiday season. American terminated the plaintiff’s employment after his explanations for his absences were “in tension” with the observations of the detectives. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for American.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recall the incontinent court reporter, hired as a control room specialist, a position compatible with her medical condition, but whose job changed when the chief judge decided to evenly distribute the workload, and required all court reporters to rotate through all courtrooms. In ADA parlance, the court changed the essential functions of the court reporter’s job. The court reporter did not claim that the court’s decision to reorganize had anything to do with her disability. When she rejected the accommodations offered her, the court terminated her employment, The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that she was not a qualified individual with a disability because she was “unable to sit in the courtroom during proceedings without disrupting court.” The Seventh Circuit rejected her “circular” argument that was qualified because she was qualified for her previous job, which did not require rotating.

An employer’s ability to change the essential functions of an employee’s job “seems like a pretty big loophole [in the ADA],” according to the Workplace Prof Blog, commenting on this same case in a piece entitled "Reorganizing Away the Duty of Reasonable Accommodation." . The Prof opines that “[a]fter the ADAAA’s expansion of the definition of ‘disabled,’ employers will be looking for more ways to avoid the accommodation duty. This one seems tailor-made: change job descriptions and thus, essentially, eliminate disabled employees from any jobs they want—and they won’t be held liable for disability discrimination!”

So is the employer’s right to reorganize and change employees’ essential functions for reasons unrelated to any employee’s disability a “loophole” in the ADA? Webster defines “loophole” as “an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.” I vote “no” because the ADA was never intended to limit an employer’s ability to reorganize its operation for reasons unrelated to an employee’s disability. Despite this, the Workplace Prof Blog notes that “there seems something troubling” about the Seventh Circuit’s “endorsement of what is in effect, if not intent, an end run around the duty of accommodation.” “Something troubling” about an employer’s exercising a right for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons which affects all employees in the job description? A fundamental principle underlying our anti-discrimination laws is that employers must make decisions based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. To hold otherwise would require Webster to revise the definition of “discrimination.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The EEOC’s challenge to “inflexible” leave policies continued this week, as the agency announced that it had sued Princeton HealthCare System for failing to reasonably accommodate employees who needed medical leave. According to the EEOC press release, Princeton HealthCare "fires employees" who are not qualified for FMLA leave and refuses to grant leave beyond the 12 weeks allowed by the FMLA. The EEOC stated that Princeton HealthCare does not grant exceptions to these policies for qualified individuals with a disability who need additional leave as a reasonable accommodation. The release states that more than a dozen Princeton HealthCare employees with disabilities who requested a leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation were denied leave and fired. The case has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of New Jersey.

The Princeton HealthCare case is the latest in a growing line of cases the EEOC has brought in which the agency claims the employer has had an inflexible leave policy in violation of the ADA. In 2009, the EEOC brought a class action suit against an international package delivery company, claiming the company violated the ADA by rejecting requests for medical leave extensions beyond its 12-month leave policy.  Also in 2009, the EEOC settled a lawsuit in which the agency alleged that a national retailer was inflexible in its administration of leave policies for employees with work-related injuries.  The retailer paid $6.2 million (a “record-setting” amount, according to the EEOC) as part of a consent decree.

We have cautioned employers about the risks of having a “leave limits” policy in our Special Report on Excusing Absences as a Reasonable Accommodation under the ADA. Employers with a leave limits policy which does not allow for additional leave for disabled employees as a reasonable accommodation, bear the risk of being the subject of the next EEOC press release.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As part of its celebration of the 20^th anniversary of the ADA, the EEOC issued a report entitled "Twenty Years of ADA Enforcement, Twenty Significant Cases," sort of the top twenty ADA cases brought by the agency. Much can be gleaned from this ten page document and we may revisit it a few times.

First, jurors have awarded large punitive damage verdicts. Six jury verdicts are in the top twenty list. In EEOC v. CEC Entertainment, the jury awarded $13 million in punitive damages to an individual with "intellectual disabilities" who was fired from his janitor’s position at a restaurant. In EEOC v. Echostar, the jury awarded $8 million in punitive damages to a blind employee denied employment as a customer service representative. And in EEOC v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., the jury awarded $1 million to a discharged lab clerk with a spine and disc disease. In each case, the punitive damage awards were reduced to the ADA’s statutory damage caps.

Next observation: employers have been reluctant to litigate these cases. Fourteen of the top twenty cases were either resolved with a consent decree or settled for amounts that ranged from $78,000 to $6.2 million. So in 70% of these cases (admittedly, a list self-selected by the EEOC), employers preferred, for whatever reason, to pay money rather than present their cases to juries. Was it litigaphobia--a fear of litigation--that led to these resolutions? Or fear of the possibility of a lottery-size punitive damage award (see paragraph above)? Or something else?

What lessons can be learned from this top twenty analysis? They include that plaintiffs in ADA cases can be sympathetic and that jurors have meted out significant punishment to employers found to have discriminated against an individual with a disability. It reinforces the need for an employer to put itself in the best position to get a case dismissed prior to trial, especially in states with disability discrimination laws that do not cap punitive damages. An employer unable to have the case dismissed prior to trial must have a good story to present to the jury to refute the disability discrimination claim.

One last point about the top twenty list: the number one listed case is the "landmark" lawsuit alleging a national retailer had an "inflexible" leave limits policy which did not allow for reasonable accommodation. The consent decree involved a payment of $6.2 million, an amount which the EEOC described as a "the largest monetary recovery" in an ADA lawsuit. We wrote previously about the EEOC’s challenges to "inflexible" leave policies. (See Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation under the ADA)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link