The courts continue to decide novel and interesting issues related to disability discrimination law.  In particular, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, has recently decided several noteworthy cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Disability-Induced Misconduct.  In Macy v. Hopkins County School Board, the Sixth Circuit held that an employer may legitimately fire an employee for conduct that is the result of a disability if the behavior disqualifies the employee from the job.  Macy was a phys ed teacher who threatened to kill a group of her middle school students.  She claimed that this threat -- as well as 31 prior complaints about her belligerent and inappropriate behavior -- stemmed from a head injury she had suffered 20 years earlier.  The school board was aware of that injury as well as a second accident that aggravated her post-concussive syndrome, causing her to have recurrent headaches, difficulty with attention and concentration, irritability with others, and outbursts of anger.  Despite its recognition of the cause of Macy’s symptoms and its history of trying to accommodate her, the school board thought that threatening to kill her students, and making inappropriate remarks about their family members and their sexual activity, was the last straw.  The Sixth Circuit agreed, joining other circuits in endorsing the common sense rule that the ADA does not give an employee license to engage in misconduct or criminal behavior.

Accommodating A Seriously Injured Employee.  Kleiber v. Honda of America Mfg presented the Sixth Circuit with a difficult accommodation issue.  Kleiber, a production associate at Honda's Marysville, Ohio plant, suffered severe head injuries when he fell from a fence while performing yard work.  He underwent considerable therapy and expert evaluation of his prospects for returning to work.  Ultimately, because of his decreased grip strength and finger dexterity, and his poor balance on level surfaces, Honda concluded that it was unable to accommodate him and terminated his employment.  Affirming the dismissal of his ADA lawsuit, the court rejected Kleiber’s argument that he ought to have been accommodated through transfer to a different position, inasmuch as there was no evidence of vacancies in other positions.  And even if a vacancy existed, the court held, Kleiber had failed to demonstrate that he was qualified.  The court stated that, while Kleiber was a sympathetic individual who had tried his best to return to work after an unfortunate injury, it could not alter the ADA’s fundamental requirement that a plaintiff show he is “qualified,” i.e., able to perform essential job functions with or without accommodation.

No Duty To Accommodate Based On “Association.”  In Overley v. Covenant Transportation, the Sixth Circuit emphasized an important distinction for ADA claims based on an individual’s association with a disabled person.  Overley was terminated from a truck driver position because her need to care for a disabled daughter meant she could only work a limited schedule.  The ADA forbids discrimination against an employee "because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association," but that provision does not require accommodation due to an association.  An individual may sue under the “association” provision claiming disparate treatment, but not for alleged failure to accommodate.  Yet Overley's claim was just that.  She sought -- based on her association with her disabled daughter -- to receive the accommodation of a limited work schedule.  The court held that the ADA did not authorize the requested accommodation. 

Are Controlled ADHD And Obesity “Disabilities”?  In Knapp v. City of Columbus, three firefighters who claimed to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which they treated with Ritalin, requested accommodations in taking promotional examinations.  The Sixth Circuit rejected the claim:  "When an ADA plaintiff can fully compensate for impairment through medication, personal practice, or an alteration of behavior, a disability under the Act does not exist."  And in EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the EEOC’s ADA suit on behalf of former employee Stephen Grindle, claiming that he was discharged from his driver/dock worker job because of his morbid obesity.  During five years of employment, Grindle's weight had risen to 450 pounds.  He sustained an on-the-job knee injury when a ladder rung broke, causing him to fall; he was terminated for not timely returning to work.  The trial court held that non-physiologically caused obesity is not an impairment under the ADA.  The Sixth Circuit agreed, rejecting the EEOC's assertion that an impairment with respect to weight can be shown either through a physiological condition or through proof of morbid obesity (i.e., body weight more than 100 percent over the norm).  The court held that a physical characteristic must relate to a physiological disorder to qualify as an ADA impairment, and refused to allow the ADA to “become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination based on appearance, size, and any number of other things far removed from the reasons [for the ADA’s passage].”

Jay C. Boger