Casanova's Advances Rebuffed; Seventh Circuit Tosses $1 Million Workers Comp Retaliation Verdict

Posted on August 26, 2010 by Michael Soltis

 

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.

Tags: , , , ,

Time To Revisit ADA Medical Inquiry Rules At "Loggerheads" With OSHA Policy

Posted on June 3, 2010 by Frank Alvarez

When a law, such as the ADA, restricts an employer's rights to take reasonable, measured steps to promote workplace safety, it ought to be re-examined.  Years ago, Justice Souter observed that preventing employers from considering "risk to self," an ADA rule many disability rights advocates had sought, would have put the ADA at "loggerheads" with federal OSHA policy requiring employers to ensure the safety of  "each" and "every" worker.  Chevron USA, Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 85 (2002).

I have always thought that to be the case with the EEOC's exceedingly narrow interpretation of the ADA rule that employee medical inquiries be "job-related and consistent with business necessity." As interpreted by the EEOC, that requirement invalidates employee medical evaluations or monitoring that are either: a) not grounded in individualized, fact-based concerns about an employee's ability to perform essential job functions safely and successfully; or b) required by federal law or regulation.  In its Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examination of Employees under the ADA, the EEOC says periodic testing and medical monitoring of employees would be permissible in positions affecting public safety; but the Guidance limits those positions to firefighters and those involved in law enforcement and security.  It also narrowly construes the permissible breadth of such evaluations.  In an informal opinion letter issued on September 10, 2004, the EEOC declined to apply the exception to off-shore oil workers. Recent events in the Gulf illustrate the dangerous nature of oil rig work, as well as the impact on public safety should operations go awry.  

The Labor and Employment Law Blog reports that a California federal district court granted summary judgment in May to a security officer terminated after he refused to complete a medical questionnaire.  The court found the employer's inquiries in the questionnaire were too broad to meet the ADA's standard of being "job-related and consistent with business necessity."  In thinking about the decision, I couldn't help but wonder whether a more narrowly tailored inquiry would be acceptable to the EEOC in most cases (perhaps in the case at hand, Scott v. Napolitano, a more narrowly-tailored questionnaire would have received EEOC approval because, as noted above, the EEOC seems to be okay with allowing narrowly-tailored monitoring of at least some security personnel).

It's time to give greater consideration to the very real safety risks employees face everyday, and the moral and financial hazards employers face if they do not have effective tools to address them.  The EEOC's presumption that  employers use employee medical information to discriminate is not as employee friendly as some might think.  Yes, some employers might misuse employee medical information but the ADA,  and state and local law, provide ample deterrence and remedies for doing so.  And the inability of employers to take reasonable, measured steps to proactively identify employee medical risks has its costs. Just ask yourself, what's a worse outcome for an employee --being the victim of disability discrimination (for which he/she has a remedy) or suffering a potentially career or life-ending workplace injury?  

I say it's in the vast majority of employees' interests to interpret this ADA provision more broadly -- to allow employers to verify an employee's physical or mental ability to perform essential job functions safely and hold them accountable if they misuse or abuse that right.  The EEOC has the ability to interpret the standard of "job-related and consistent with business necessity" broader than it has to date.  It's time to do so ... let's put an end to ADA-OSHA "loggerheads."   

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Limiting Light Duty to Work-Related Injuries: Is it Still Lawful?

Posted on April 30, 2010 by Frank Alvarez

Many employers limit “transitional work” or “light duty” to individuals with work-related injuries. But is such a practice lawful? Most believe it is. Many years ago, in fact, the EEOC specifically endorsed the practice, with some caveats, in its Enforcement Guidance on the ADA and Workers’ Compensation. However, in a September 2009 EEOC press release announcing an ADA lawsuit filed against Supervalu-Jewel Osco, the EEOC reported it was challenging rules that limited light duty to individuals with work-related injuries.

The EEOC also has some history of challenging such policies under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. See, for example, the suits brought in EEOC v. WinCo Foods, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64521 (E.D. Cal. 2006) and EEOC v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000).

Private litigants also seem to be picking up this ball and running. In Germain v. County of Suffolk, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45434 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), a New York federal district court denied the Suffolk County Parks Department summary judgment on a claim attacking the Park Department’s policy precluding pregnant officers from working light-duty assignments. In that case, the plaintiff filed both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims and both survived summary judgment. A number of states also have statutes prohibiting employers from denying temporary light duty or transitional duty to pregnant employees if they provide it to other employees similarly restricted in their ability to work (Michigan, Louisiana and Hawaii to name a few).

This trend places in-house legal and HR in a tight spot. Many risk managers believe passionately in the benefits, and cost-savings, associated with light duty or other return to work programs. And many managers fear providing light duty to employees with non-occupational injuries, including pregnancy related limitations, would be either unworkable or undermine the ability to respond effectively to the needs of injured workers.

Some clarity on the EEOC’s current position would be much appreciated. Failing that, or some definitive appellate case law, employers will be exposed to either legal or operational risks no matter which option they choose.

For more information, see the EEOC's press release or Guidance: ADA and Workers’ Compensation.

Tags: