Judge rules against former employee in ADA claim
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30709 |
| Date | 01 January 2020 |
| Published date | 01 January 2020 |
NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR JANUARY 2020
10 © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1002/nba
Employment Law
Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review
employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.
ADA
Judge rules against former employee
in ADA claim
The plaintiff was an employee of the Hawaii De-
partment of Taxation.
In 2016, he sustained a work-related injury that
caused bilateral elbow tendonitis.
When the plaintiff went on medical leave in April
2017, he provided a doctor’s report stating that he
would be able to return on May 23.
However, the plaintiff actually stayed off work
until June 30, without providing the HDT any rea-
son concerning why he had been unable to come in
earlier.
After the plaintiff was red in July, he led a suit
that made several claims.
One was disability discrimination in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The defendant led a motion for summary judg-
ment, arguing that the plaintiff wasn’t a “qualied
individual” within the meaning of the ADA because
he had failed to attend work for several weeks in 2017.
The district court judge said the statute dened a
“qualied individual” as an employee who could per-
form the essential functions of the job with or without
reasonable accommodations. She also explained that
the term “essential functions” meant “fundamental
job duties.”
EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge agreed with
the defendant, ruling that even if the plaintiff had a
medical reason to stay home from work, conveying
that reason to his employer was unquestionably a
fundamental job duty. Because the plaintiff had not
conveyed any reason to his employer between May
23 and June 30, the judge held that he wasn’t a quali-
ed individual who was able to perform an essential
duty of his job.
The judge also ruled that the plaintiff had failed
to show disability discrimination.
She explained that when a defendant proffered a
legitimate and nondiscriminatory basis for a termi-
nation, the burden shifted to the former employee
to show that the proffered reason was mere pretext.
She ruled that the defendant had offered suf-
cient evidence that the plaintiff had been red for
the legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason that
he was on “no-call no-show” status from May 23 to
June 30. She then ruled it was the plaintiff’s burden
to establish a reasonable dispute about whether the
proffered reason was false.
The plaintiff rst argued that the stated reason
wasn’t true, because he had never had any prior
unexcused work absences. However, the judge ruled
that even if the plaintiff was correct about that, being
gone for over a month without saying why was more
than adequate justication for termination and was
also considered a “resignation” under the terms of
his employment agreement.
The plaintiff next argued that the defendant’s
phone system was often unreliable. But the judge
said that even if he was correct about that, the
plaintiff could have used email, the postal service or
other ways to periodically send in doctor’s reports,
which he had done on that same leave of absence
before May 23.
The judge granted a summary judgment in favor
of the defendant.
[Cooper v. State of Hawaii, et al., U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii, No. 18-cv-284,
06/20/2019].
Free speech
Judge sides with employee on retaliation
claim
The plaintiff was a Nigerian national.
In May 2015, she allegedly became the only non-
U.S. citizen on the analytics team at the New York
City Department of Buildings.
In late August, she complained to human resources
that the chief analytics ofcer had rejected several
qualied candidates for an available position because
of their alienage or immigration status. According to
the plaintiff, he responded that foreign applicants: (1)
weren’t uent in English, (2) would have to leave once
their work authorization expired, and (3) wouldn’t
be of any use.
Two weeks later, he chastised the plaintiff for ar-
riving late and completing her timecard incorrectly
in spite of her protest that her co-workers weren’t
reprimanded for similar infractions.
To continue reading
Request your trial