|
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that if an employee's physical condition does not substantially limit a major life activity, and the employer does not believe it does, there is no violation of the "regarded as" prong of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Mack v. Great Dane Trailers, the court held that the concepts of "substantially limited" and "major life activity" should be applied in the same manner regardless of whether the employee is proceeding under a claim of "actual disability" or "regarded as disability."
By so holding, the Seventh Circuit has extended the Supreme Court's analysis in Toyota Motor Mfg. Ky., Inc. v. Williams, decided earlier this year, which held that an individual who makes a claim under the ADA must be substantially limited in activities that are "central to daily life," not just "manual tasks unique to any particular job." (See Krukowski & Costello's March 2002 Issue of the Month, Defining Disability Under the ADA - Don't Make Too Much Work of It).
Mark A. Mack worked for Great Dane Trailers as an assistant trailer builder, a position which required long periods of kneeling and squatting. Because of his job duties, Mack developed severe nerve damage, which eventually resulted in his physician permitting him to return to work only with permanent restrictions of no "kneeling or squatting." During the course of his medical treatment, Mack was on worker's compensation leave and was receiving total temporary disability benefits. He made several requests of Great Dane Trailers to return him to work, however, he was told that there was nothing available within his restrictions. Thirteen months after his disability leave began, Mack's employment with Great Dane Trailers ended pursuant to a company policy which terminated employees who are absent more than one year. He subsequently filed a suit under the ADA, alleging that he was "regarded as disabled" by Great Dane managers who, he claimed, believed him to be substantially limited in the major life activity of "lifting."
Under the ADA, an individual is disabled if he/she has "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual." The ADA also protects from discrimination those individuals who are "regarded as" having a disability by an employer.
In order to prove "regarded as disabled" under the ADA, an employee must show that:
- (1) a covered entity mistakenly believes that a person has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or
(2) a covered entity mistakenly believes that an actual, non-limiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities.
In Mack v. Great Dane Trailers, the court first determined whether Mack suffered from a disability which substantially limited him in a major life activity. Applying the Supreme Court's analysis from Toyota, the Seventh Circuit looked to see whether Mack was unable to perform different activities which are important to most people's daily lives. In Toyota, the Supreme Court narrowed the "inability to perform manual tasks" basis of disability under the ADA to include only those people affected in both their personal and work lives, effectively shutting the door on cases brought by plaintiffs who sought to focus solely on workplace limitations. In its decision, the Supreme Court highlighted specific personal tasks such as "household chores, bathing, and brushing one's teeth" as those activities central to an individual's daily living which, if unable to perform, renders an individual "disabled" for ADA purposes. Under the Toyota analysis, an employee's inability to perform "occupation-specific" tasks does not necessarily show an inability to perform the central functions of daily life.
Mack's claimed disability fit neatly into the sort of occupation-specific limitation at issue in Toyota. He presented no evidence that Great Dane believed his impairment was anything more than it was – a limitation on his ability to do certain tasks on the job. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit found that Mack's inability to lift heavy objects disqualified him from particular jobs but did not necessarily interfere with the central functions of daily life.
The Seventh Circuit's second determination was whether to distinguish Mack's claim of "regarded as" disability from the ADA claim in Toyota which dealt with an "actual" disability. The court found that the concepts of "major life activity" and "substantially limits" are the same regardless of whether the employee is proceeding under a claim that he/she is "actually" disabled or "regarded as disabled." Accordingly, "while Toyota did not address a claim that the employee was regarded as disabled, its analysis still controls" in cases where such a claim is made.
This Seventh Circuit decision continues the ongoing judicial trend of narrowing the parameters of the ADA. It requires employees to prove they are disabled by showing more than the inability to do a manual task on the job. The ADA was created to protect individuals with significant limitations, not minor injuries or routine restrictions. The decision in Mack v. Great Dane Trailers further shifts the emphasis in determining ADA disability to the individual's ability to perform activities necessary for daily living, not just functions required by employment.
For more information regarding reasonable accommodation, training programs and publications, please call (414) 423-1330 or e-mail Krukowski & Costello's educational services department.
|
