Issues: If an ADA employee rejects a new position is that employee entitled to protection under the ADA?
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
Holding: Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against her employer for discrimination based on the ADA and the Age Discrimination Act after she rejected a new position and after she was rejected for a different opening within the hospital.
Plaintiff was employed as a registered nurse for twenty-two years when she took a medical leave of absence. In 1995, Plaintiff fell and broke her leg, which necessitated surgery and a medical leave of absence. Plaintiff’s doctor released her to work without restrictions in June of 1996. However, after speaking with the Plaintiff, the doctor reversed his opinions and agreed that Plaintiff would not be able to return to her nursing position.
Plaintiff was put an on an ADA list of people who could no longer fill their regular positions. Her employer attempted to find suitable employment for these people. Shortly after being placed on the list, Plaintiff was contacted, interviewed, and agreed she could perform the essential functions of a new job. However, upon learning of the salary, Plaintiff told her employer she was not interested in the new position.
Plaintiff was contacted in January of 1997 and advised of four vacancies. Plaintiff interviewed for the new positions, agreed she could perform the essential functions of the jobs However, the employer did not offer her any of the position as they found four more qualified employees.
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she was discriminated against due to her disability and her age. The Court held that because the first position offered to the plaintiff was a reasonable accommodation, her rejection of that position disqualified her from being considered a qualified individual with a disability.
The Court further held that "[a]n employer need not reassign a disabled employee to a position for which he is not qualified, nor is the employer required to waive legitimate, non-discriminatory employment policies or displace other employees’ rights to accommodate a disabled employee." In its reasoning, the Court found that the positions Plaintiff was not offered were not comparable to her previous position.
The Court noted that its role is to prevent unlawful hiring practices, not to act as a "super personnel department" that second guesses employer’s business decisions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
