Dive Brief:
- A district court rightfully dismissed a truck driver’s disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit because his heart condition did not limit a major life activity and therefore did not count as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Thursday.
- The plaintiff in Stephens v. U.S. Environmental Services LLC claimed refusal to perform work that could aggravate his atrial fibrillation, which limited breathing as well as respiratory, circulatory and cardiovascular function. However, a nurse who examined the plaintiff at the employer’s request determined he was medically and physically fit to perform the work. The plaintiff’s cardiologist agreed.
- During the exam period, the plaintiff’s commercial driver’s license was placed on a hold and he asked to perform other work. The employer denied his request, and he resigned because he “did not feel comfortable” continuing in his role after the denial. He alleged disability discrimination and relation including failure-to-accommodate. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer and the 8th Circuit affirmed.
Dive Insight:
The case is a reminder of the contours of ADA’s disability definition. Per U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance, the law defines disability as a physical or mental health impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. It protects individuals who have a record of such an impairment as well as those who are regarded as having such an impairment.
Furthermore, the ADA’s major life activity definition is broad. The ADA Amendments Act provides a nonexhaustive list of activities and a similar list of major bodily functions that meet the law’s criteria.
Yet, even under this expansive definition, the plaintiff in Stephens did not qualify, according to the 8th Circuit. That was the case despite an “abnormal” electrocardiogram, or EKG, performed by the nurse that resulted in a hold being placed on his CDL. The nurse and the cardiologist nonetheless determined that the plaintiff was fit to perform other work, and the cardiologist found the EKG to be normal for him upon review.
Subsequently, the nurse asked for the plaintiff to perform a stress test supervised by the cardiologist, which also returned “unremarkable” results, the court said. The cardiologist cleared the plaintiff to resume his commercial driver duties, adding that the plaintiff was “doing very well.” All of the above evidence supported the conclusion that the plaintiff did not have a disability.
The plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim similarly failed. He alleged that he requested a respirator prior to cleaning a pair of underground tanks — work that would have normally fell outside his job as a driver — but was demanded by safety workers on the scene to perform the task without a respirator, which he did.
The court noted that it was not until after the safety workers approved of the work that the plaintiff mentioned his heart condition, but the plaintiff did not say his heart condition required a respirator. Ultimately, the court determined that the respirator request constituted a request for general safety equipment available to all employees, rather than a reasonable accommodation request. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to show he engaged in protected activity.
In the event that an employee is determined to have a disability within the ADA’s definition and can perform the essential functions of their job with reasonable accommodation, a covered employer must provide the accommodation, often through the result of an interactive process.
Importantly, employers may ask for documentation of an employee’s disability from a qualified health provider and, in some cases, may request a medical examination. However, such exams should be strictly limited and tailored to the individual, an attorney previously told HR Dive.
