December 11, 2019

December 11, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 10, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 09, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Sixth Circuit Confirms Standard for 'Regarded As' Discrimination Under the ADA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently confirmed the standard to establish a claim under the “regarded as” prong of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Applying the correct standard for such claims, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer.

In Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists, P.C., the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer. The plaintiff, a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA), had been diagnosed with a degenerative eye condition, but according to plaintiff, her condition did not affect her ability to perform her job responsibilities.

The plaintiff employee alleged that she was terminated due to an incorrect perception that her eye condition was a disability. On the other hand, the defendant employer argued that the employee was terminated for clinical errors, rather than her perceived disability.

After excluding the employee’s expert evidence regarding the standard of care for CRNAs, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The court concluded that while the employer might have perceived the employee as disabled, there was nothing in the record to suggest that the perceived disability was the basis for the termination rather than the employee’s alleged clinical errors.

The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that there were genuine factual disputes regarding whether the employer regarded the employee as disabled and whether the employer’s proffered reasons for the employee’s termination were pretext.

The Sixth Circuit also concluded that the district court had erred in excluding the plaintiff employee’s expert testimony. The expert had opined on the standard of care for CRNAs, and concluded that the employee’s performance had met that standard. The district court excluded that testimony in its entirety, characterizing it as an impermissible legal conclusion regarding pretext. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, finding that “district court used a sledgehammer, when the law required that it use only a scalpel.” According to the Sixth Circuit, the expert opinion on the standard of care shed light on the employer’s claim that the employee had actually committed “critical” errors and displayed “terrible clinical judgment.” The Sixth Circuit made clear that expert testimony is not inadmissible simply because it suggests an answer to an ultimate issue or provides an inferential basis to decide an ultimate issue; rather, expert testimony is objectionable only if it opines on the ultimate question of liability.

The appeals court thus considered the excluded expert evidence, along with the remainder of the record. Critically, the record included an email sent by a fellow CRNA hours after the plaintiff employee’s termination, stating that she had been terminated due to “major issues with her eyesight.” As the court explained, the email “essentially [stated] that [the defendant employer] was firing [the plaintiff employee] because of her impaired vision.” According to the Sixth Circuit, “[i]f this kind of ‘smoking gun’ evidence cannot get an employment discrimination plaintiff past summary judgment on the question of pretext, it is hard to imagine what could.”

Importantly, the Sixth Circuit’s Babb decision confirms the standard for claims alleging “regarded as” discrimination under the ADA. The First, Fifth, Tenth and D.C. circuits have all previously held that to make a “regarded as” claim under the ADA, an employee need only show that their employer believed they had a “physical or mental impairment,” whether or not the purported impairment qualifies as a disability under the ADA. They must also demonstrate that the perceived disability was the “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action. As the Sixth Circuit put it, under the ADA, “your employer can’t fire you because they think you are disabled, even if, in fact, you are not disabled.”

To be clear, the Babb decision presents an example of a relatively uncommon scenario: seemingly rock solid direct evidence of discrimination. It is (hopefully) rare that such blatant discrimination occurs, and certainly uncommon for direct evidence of it to exist. 

 

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Peter J. Wozniak Barnes Thornburg Chicago  Labor Employment
Partner

Pete Wozniak is a vigorous advocate who strives to help his clients navigate issues that can be fraught with challenges as painlessly and efficiently as possible. He is a candid and personable counselor, offering his clients direct advice by leveraging his deep experience performing a broad range of outcome critical functions for complex labor and employment matters.

Pete represents clients across a number of industries, including transportation and logistics, restaurants, retail, manufacturing, and temporary staffing. Handling a number of high profile matters, he identifies the...

312-214-2113
Mark Wallin, Attorney, BT, Chicago, Labor Employment
Of Counsel

In order to provide the best counsel, Mark Wallin believes it is his role to understand his clients’ business needs so he can help them determine what resolution will provide the most benefit. His keen ability to understand his clients’ practical concerns allows him to advise on the best path to successfully resolve issues – whether through traditional litigation or negotiated resolution.

In the course of his practice, Mark has focused on providing the highest-level of service to his clients and building long-term relationships. Specifically, he defends employers in a wide range of employment matters including wage and hour class and collective actions, as well as complex, multi-plaintiff and single plaintiff employment discrimination claims brought not only by private plaintiffs but also initiated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Mark has successfully represented companies of virtually all sizes, litigating matters across multiple areas of the law, from the pleading stage through appeal. He has also represented clients in arbitrations and before administrative bodies.

Mark vigilantly stays abreast of cases, laws, and trends that may impact his clients coming out of the courts, Congress and the state legislature, as well as the U.S. Department of Labor, the EEOC, and state regulatory agencies. He strives to keep a watchful eye on how labor and employment related laws are evolving so as to proactively advise clients.

In addition to his regular legal practice, Mark has undertaken several pro bono cases including trying criminal jury trials in state and federal court, and representing indigent plaintiffs in civil rights matters as part of the federal Trial Bar.

Mark began honing his litigation skill during law school when he interned at the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Illinois, where he handled both civil and criminal issues. He also interned for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which gave him a unique vantage of seeing the issues from the court’s perspective.

312-214-4591