Judge rules against former employee in disabilities case

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30680
• Date: 01 November 2019
• Published date: 01 November 2019

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR NOVEMBER 2019

10 © 2019 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 nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review

employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.

Rehabilitation Act

Judge rules against former employee

in disabilities case

The plaintiff had a heart attack only a few days

after she had been hired to work for the National

Geospatial Intelligence Agency in October 2010.

When she returned to the ofce in January 2011

with an internal debrillator, the plaintiff didn’t ask

for any accommodations.

A supervisor told the plaintiff six months later that

her performance wasn’t “stellar.”

In October, the plaintiff received an overall rating

of “Minimally Successful.”

In May 2012, a supervisor said the plaintiff lacked

prociency in the execution of routine actions, and

also that there hadn’t been any improvement in the

objectives of: (1) accountability for results, (2) com-

munication and (3) critical thinking.

The plaintiff was allowed to retire in June instead

of being red.

She then led an Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission complaint in July that claimed disability

discrimination. During the ensuing investigation, the

plaintiff told the EEOC she was no longer able to run

a marathon or lift more than 40 pounds.

She then led a suit claiming violations of the

Rehabilitation Act.

The defendant led a motion for summary judg-

ment, arguing that the plaintiff wasn’t disabled.

The district court judge said the term “disabil-

ity” was dened by the statute as: (1) a physical or

mental impairment that substantially limited one

or more major life activities, (2) a record of such an

impairment or (3) being regarded as having such an

impairment.

She also explained that “major life activities” in-

cluded “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks,

seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing,

lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, read-

ing, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and

working.”

In addition, the judge cautioned that the EEOC

regulations specied that not every impairment would

constitute a disability within the meaning of the Re-

habilitation Act.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ She then ruled that the

plaintiff’s cardiac condition failed to meet the stat-

ute’s denition of “disability,” even though (1) the

defendant had conceded that it was a physical im-

pairment, (2) several major life activities had been

affected because her circulatory system had clearly

been impacted by her episode and (3) the plaintiff

had testied that she had experienced difculty in

both sleeping and walking.

However, the judge said the plaintiff had failed to

show how her impairment substantially limited any

major life activity. The judge explained that even

though the statutory term “substantially limited” was

to be construed broadly in favor of the plaintiff, any

physical limitations had to be viewed in the context

of most people in the general population.

The judge said there wasn’t any doubt that the 2010

cardiac incident was severe and the resulting use of

a debrillator was difcult for the plaintiff to deal

with. However, she also said that being unable to run

a marathon and lift over 40 pounds weren’t activities

that most people in the general population could do.

The judge granted a summary judgment in favor

of the defendant.

[Gates v. Cardillo, U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri, No. 4:17-CV-02320,

05/16/2019].

Disability

Court rejects retaliation claim

When the New York Department of Investiga-

tion hired him in 2012, the plaintiff made it clear to

everyone that he had a severe hearing impairment.

In 2013, the plaintiff complained to the depart-

ment commissioner that his supervisor was indifferent

to his hearing disability.

In March 2014, that supervisor sent a counseling

memorandum to the plaintiff that claimed there were

numerous errors in the correspondence he had been

sending out.

In May, that supervisor assigned the plaintiff a

rating of two out of ve, and also gave him a “needs

improvement” rating in several categories. Her com-

ments included such things as: (1) “tasks have not

been completed in a timely manner,” and (2) “email