We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
United States: Court Finds Against EEOC And Holds Charging Party Who Represented Herself As Being "Totally Disabled" Was Not Qualified To Perform Her Job
In
EEOC v. Vicksburg Healthcare LLC, et al., Case No.
13-CV-895 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 27, 2015), a case we have blogged about
previously
here and
here, Judge Keith Starrett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi recently rejected the EEOC's
lawsuit. He entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant and
against the EEOC on its disability discrimination claims, finding
that the charging party was not able to perform her job duties in
light of the fact she described herself as "totally
disabled" in making a disability insurance claim.
This case should be of interest to employers engaged in EEOC
disability discrimination litigation because it provides a
potential route to summary judgment when plaintiffs claim outside
of litigation that they were not able to perform their job duties
because of their disabilities.
Case Background
Beatrice Chambers ("Chambers") was a nurse for
Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC d/b/a River Region Medical Center
("River Region"). After taking medical leave for shoulder
surgery, Chambers' physician sent a note to River Region
stating that she could return to duty as long as she was limited to
"light work." Because River Region concluded that
Chambers could not perform the essential functions of her job when
limited to "light work," River Region terminated
Chambers.
The day after Chambers was terminated, Chambers' physician
filled out a disability insurance claim form that stated that
Chambers had a "temporary total disability." Chambers
reviewed this form and sent it to her insurer.
The EEOC filed suit on Chambers' behalf, claiming she could
perform the essential functions of her job while being limited to
light duty and that her termination thus violated the ADA.
The Court's Decision
The Court began by noting that "[t]o establish a prima
facie discrimination claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must
prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he was qualified for
the job; and (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment
decision on account of his disability." Vicksburg
Healthcare, at 5. It then moved on to consider whether
Chambers could prove that she was qualified to perform the
essential functions of her job in light of the statement in her
insurance claim that she was totally disabled. Id. at
6-7.
Judge Starrett noted that, in Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys.
Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court held
that "'when faced with a plaintiff's previous sworn
statement asserting 'total disability' or the like, the
court should require an explanation of any apparent inconsistency
with the necessary elements of an ADA claim.'"
Id. (quotingCleveland, 526 U.S. at
806). The Court concluded that the EEOC would, in light of
Cleveland, have to present an explanation that would allow
the Court to conclude that Chambers could perform the essential
functions of her job despite her insurance claim. Vicksburg
Healthcare, at 7.
The Court then considered the EEOC's explanation. According
to the EEOC, the fact that Chambers applied for disability benefits
after her termination explained the discrepancy between her
insurance claim and her litigation position. Id. at 8. The
Court disagreed, finding the explanation insufficient to explain
the discrepancy. Id. at 8-9. The Court thus granted
summary judgment to River Region, finding that the EEOC had not met
its burden of producing sufficient evidence that Chambers was
qualified to perform the essential functions of her job.
Id.
Implications For Employers
Individuals who are terminated because they are unable to
perform their jobs due to disability often seek disability benefits
through private insurers or the Social Security Administration. In
the course of seeking those benefits, these individuals frequently
represent that they are totally disabled or are wholly unable to do
their job due to their disability. Employers involved in ADA
discrimination litigation should be on the lookout for such
representations and, relying on Vicksburg Healthcare and
the language of Cleveland, employers can use such
representations to seek summary judgment.
Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog
here.
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Our client, we'll call them Company X, provides installation, connection, upgrades and repairs for one of the country's largest providers of residential and commercial television, telephone
Summer's not over yet! On August 28, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor issued four new letters in response to requests for opinions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Last month, the Sixth Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky) revived an employee's claim that the termination of her employment, due to her inability to return to her full-time job because of her post-partum depression and separation anxiety arising from leaving her baby at home, was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Elise Bloom Leads MLB Arguments In The Ninth Circuit (Video)
