Advertisement

April 21, 2014

Wisconsin District Court Finds Employer’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Direct Threat Evidence Insufficient

On Aug. 30, 2013, a federal district court in Wisconsin denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff asserted a ADA claim for discriminatory discharge. (EEOC v. Rexnord Industries, LLC).  This was despite the fact that the employer asserted that the employee’s seizure disorder made her a “direct threat” to the safety of herself and those around her.

Even under the expansive scope of the ADA Amendments Act, an individual is not a “qualified” individual with a disability if she presents a “direct threat” to her own health and safety or that of others.  However, in order to establish this defense, the employer must rely on a “reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence, and upon an expressly individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safety perform the essential functions of the job.”  Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002).

In this case, the plaintiff was diagnosed with an active seizure disorder.  She had numerous seizures at work, some of which required calling an ambulance to take her for emergency treatment.  She also complained of blackouts and vomiting.  Ultimately, the employer obtained a written opinion from a physician that her active seizure disorder posed a direct safety risk to herself and others and that she should not return to work until her medical condition was stabilized.  The employee was then fired the next day.  Despite having this medical documentation, the court was not convinced.  The EEOC provided expert testimony challenging the diagnosis of the company’s doctor based on improper methodology.  They challenged whether the employer relied upon the “most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence.”  Because of the conflicting expert testimony, the court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment and left it up to the jury to decide at trial.

As shown by the court’s decision, an employer has a daunting task if it intends to rely upon the “direct threat” defense to justify terminations. The “most current knowledge” and “best available objective evidence” standards seem to be almost unattainable by a normal “company doctor” doing a fitness for duty evaluation. Employers should use caution in relying on this defense based on the heightened evidentiary standard. 

© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Mark Kittaka, Labor and Employment Attorney, Barnes Thornburg, Law Firm
Partner

Mark S. Kittaka is a partner and the administrator of the Labor and Employment Law Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Fort Wayne, Indiana office. Mr. Kittaka’s practice covers all areas of labor and employment law including federal and state litigation concerning discriminatory practices and retaliation claims, including, but not limited to: Title VII race, sex, color, and religious discrimination claims; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process); Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); the...

260-425-4616

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.