Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 0
Morbid obesity is not a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unless caused by an underlying medical condition.
A dockworker who weighed 405 pounds did not have a claim under the ADA when he was fired pursuant to company policy after being out on medical leave for more than 180 days.
The worker was injured at work when a ladder he was climbing broke. When he took leave to recover, the company informed him of its policy that anyone who remained on a leave of absence for more than 180 days would be terminated. It also required he get clearance from a doctor before returning to the job. The employee's own doctor never returned the so-called "fitness for duty" form, and the company's doctor found that the worker was not able to safely perform his job's requirements because of his weight. Therefore, after 180 days of absence, he was fired.
The dockworker sued, arguing his termination violated the ADA, because the company perceived him as disabled, or unable to perform his job because of a disability. The court disagreed. Although the worker's obesity impaired his ability to work, it did not rise to the level of a disability, because it did not have a physiological cause. That is, there was no medical reason the worker was obese. Mere physical characteristics are not disabilities, and therefore, it did not matter if the employer believed the employee's weight made him unable to work.
This case explains that the ADA only protects employees who have true disabilities or are regarded as having true disabilities. This includes physical impairments that have a physiological cause but not physical differences that do not relate to a medical condition.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see EEOC vs. Watkins Motor Lines, 2006 US App. LEXIS 23177 (6th Cir. September 12, 2006)].
School did not violate teacher's First Amendment rights when it terminated her for proselytizing in her classroom.
A cosmetology instructor who told a gay student homosexuality was wrong and gave him religious pamphlets was not protected by the First Amendment, a court recently found.
The student complained to school administrators, and the instructor was warned not to proselytize in the classroom. When she did not stop, students complained in their evaluations, and the instructor's contract was not renewed. She sued, arguing that her First Amendment right to freedom of speech had been violated.
The court first explained that the First Amendment does not protect public employees from employer discipline when they make unwanted statements related to their jobs, although the law generally protects the right of teachers to engage in academic debates and inquiries in the classroom. In this case, comments about homosexuality are not related to the study of cosmetology, so the question was whether the college had the right to limit the instructor's speech while she was teaching. The court found that the college did have the right to insist on a professional relationship between students and teachers and also to insure its policies against sexual harassment were followed. The instructor's comments both undermined her relationship with her class and also could be construed as sexual harassment of the gay student, and so the college was justified in limiting her speech.
The First Amendment does not give employees the right to say anything they wish while at work. Comments related to an employee's job are not protected by the First Amendment, and even those comments that are unrelated (called matters of public concern) may be reasonably limited to insure that the workplace functions safely and efficiently.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Piggee vs. Carl Sandburg Coll., -- F.3d --, 2006 WL 2771669 (7th Cir. September 19, 2006)].
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does not protect employee with alleged panic disorder who assaulted supervisor at work.
A driver for a waste-management company who left work saying he felt sick and then drove 30 miles to confront his supervisor did not have a claim under the FMLA when he was terminated for his violent outburst.
The driver had been written up in the past for aggressive behavior but had never informed his employer that he had any sort of medical condition or needed time off of work. He argued that his termination violated the FMLA, because the employer should have allowed him to take the day off work because of his panic disorder.
The court found that the employee had not established he had a serious health condition that entitled him to leave under the FMLA. He had never missed a day of work because of illness, and even on the day he left early saying he felt sick, he did not seek medical treatment but instead drove to confront his supervisor. Further, it was his violent assault of his supervisor, not his alleged illness or need for time off work, that led to his termination. As the court explained, the FMLA is not intended to protect employees who engage in workplace violence.
This case explains that employers are not required to ignore workplace violence simply because the employee argues that he has a medical condition that caused the behavior. However, if an employee indicates the need for leave to take care of a serious physical or mental health condition, the employer has the obligation to follow through and process the request.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Anders vs. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, 7th Cir.., -- F.3d --, 2006 WL 2597853 (7th Cir. September 12, 2006)].
String of discriminatory comments and behaviors by supervisor towards employee was enough to allege a "mosaic of evidence" of illegal behavior.
A former nursing-home cook who alleged that her supervisor fired her after making a series of discriminatory comments can take her claims to trial, a court recently ruled.
The cook, who is Hispanic, alleged that her supervisor made numerous comments about the poor work performance of Mexicans, including telling other workers she was not going to hire any more Mexicans, because they caused too many problems. The supervisor also allegedly urged the pregnant cook to get an abortion and told her she would have trouble doing her job if pregnant. Finally, the supervisor issued the cook an arguably undeserved warning. After the cook complained about it to a higher-level manager, the supervisor allegedly told her she was fired.
The cook sued, arguing she was unlawfully fired because of her Mexican heritage, her pregnancy and/or because she complained to management. The court held that all of these facts, if proven, created enough direct evidence of discrimination to support the cook's claims. This proof is different, the court explained, from situations where the plaintiff shows she was treated worse than workers outside her protected group and there is no good reason for the difference. In this case, the alleged comments and behaviors by the supervisor were straightforward and discriminatory and together, they created enough evidence to go to trial.
The court in this case stressed that employers cannot look at individual pieces of evidence of discrimination separately to conclude that no illegal behavior is taking place. Instead, all evidence must be considered together. In this case, there were numerous comments and suspicious behaviors that together supported a claim of discrimination.
If you have questions about whether a termination is legal, consult with an experienced labor and employment attorney.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Paz vs. Wauconda Healthcare and Rehab. Ctr., 7th Cir.., -- F.3d --, 2006 WL 2670342 (7th Cir. September 19, 2006)].
