LaborSphere, Author at Laborsphere

Sixth Circuit Joins Seventh Circuit in Holding that Pre-2008 ADA Cases Requires “But-for” Showing of Discrimination

Reversing 17 years of circuit court precedent, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, held that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires a plaintiff to show that his or her claimed disability was a “but-for” cause for the employer’s adverse employment decision. The decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., Case No. 09-6381 (6^th Cir., May 25, 2012), marks the Sixth Circuit’s first decision analyzing the ADA’s causation standard since the Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009). In that case, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must show that age was a “but-for” cause for the adverse action, pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s (“ADEA”) “because of” language, and further, the court repudiated the application of a “mixed-motives” analysis under the ADEA. In holding that the ADA requires a “but-for” showing based on the ADA’s pre-2008 language that prohibited discrimination “because of” an employee’s disability, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation Inc., 591 F.3d 957 (7^th Cir. 2010), the only other circuit court decision addressing the issue since Gross v. FBL.

In so holding, the Sixth Circuit overruled its precedent requiring a plaintiff to show that his or her disability was the “sole reason” for the adverse employment action. The court had previously held that such a standard applied under the ADA based on its interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. While holding that a “but-for” analysis applies under the ADA, the Sixth Circuit also addressed the plaintiff’s arguments in favor of a “motivating factor” analysis applicable under Title VII. Holding that each federal anti-discrimination statute must be analyzed based upon its own text, the court held that the statutory texts and histories of Title VII and the ADA did not justify borrowing Title VII’s “mixed-motives” analysis for ADA purposes.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision is based upon the ADA’s pre-ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”) language. The ADAAA now prohibits discrimination “on the basis of disability.” As such, the Sixth Circuit’s holding is limited to cases governed by the pre-2008 statute and any statements regarding the causation standard under the ADA are dicta for cases brought under the ADAAA.

Report Confirms Large Increase in ADA Employment Litigation in Federal Courts

A Syracuse University report provides confirmation for what employment litigators already suspected — the number of ADA employment lawsuits filed in federal court are way up, nearly 90% higher than five years ago and 12% from a year ago. To read the full report click here.

The report by Syracuse U.’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found 183 lawsuits were filed in April 2012 in the 90 federal district courts around the country compared to less than 100 five years ago. The report also documents the steady increase in ADA employment litigation over the last five years.

The vast expansion of the definition of “disability” under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-325), which became effective January 1, 2009, is likely the biggest culprit, along with the general aging of the population and the continued economic downturn.

The report also details the 10 biggest hotbeds for ADA employment litigation, measured by lawsuits per capita in those judicial districts. Not surprisingly, federal courts based in Tulsa, Pensacola and Manhattan took the top three spots, with the courts based in Chicago, Las Vegas and Philadelphia occupying three other spots in the top 10.

Interestingly, three of the bottom 10 spots are held by federal courts in California, primarily because California disability discrimination laws and California’s state courts are, by far, the strong preference of the plaintiffs’ employment bar. I would love to see a similar report on disability in employment claims filed in California’s state court, but my experience tells me that we’d see a similar increase that we see in the federal statistics reported above.

Sadly, I’m afraid that these trends will continue for quite some time.

9th Circuit Says ADA Does Not Protect Medpot Users and California Court of Appeals Rules California Law Applies to Wrongful Discharge Claim of Corporate Officer

Reflecting on the employer’s perspective on two decisions with national ramifications emanating from California last week, you have an unexpected victory from the Ninth Circuit on medical marijuana and an expected loss from the California Court of Appeal on the application of California law to a California-based officer of a Delaware corporation.

James v. City of Costa Mesa, 10-55769 (9th Cir. May 21, 2012) — The ADA Does Not Protect Medpot Users

The first of these decisions from the Ninth Circuit means that California employers are now free under state and federal law to prohibit marijuana use or possession in the workplace and working while under the influence. See also Ross v. Ragingwire Telecomms., Inc., 174 P.3d 200 (Cal. 2008) (no right to use or be under the influence of medical marijuana in the workplace under California disability discrimination laws).

In hearing a challenge to two California cities’ decisions to bar med-pot dispensaries within their borders, the Ninth Circuit in James held in a 2-1 vote that plaintiffs using medical marijuana under California law were not “individuals with disabilities” under the ADA and thus not entitled to its protections. Although the lawsuit was not an employment case, it nonetheless addressed the same definition of “individuals with disabilities” used in Title I of the ADA, the act’s employment provisions. Given a strong and reasoned dissenting opinion, one can expect a request for the Ninth Circuit to decide the matter en banc (through an 11-judge panel).

To read the full opinion of the court click this link: James v. City of Costa Mesa

Lidow v. Superior Court (International Rectifier Corp.), B239042 (Cal. Ct. of App. May 23, 1012) — California Law Applies to Wrongful Discharge Claim of Corporate Officer

The second decision was far less surprising. There, a California court held that California law applied to the discharge of a Delaware corporation’s California-based CEO, despite the so-called “internal affairs” doctrine. Under that doctrine, matters involving a corporation’s “internal affairs” are governed by the law of the state of incorporation. In an acknowledged case of first impression, the Court of Appeal held that an employer’s discharge of its CEO for complaining about the company’s harmful or unethical policies was not an “internal” corporate matter and should be governed by California law. While it left open the possibility that another basis for discharge may invoke application of the doctrine, it is hard to imagine a circumstance where a California-based CEO or other corporate officer/employee would not be able to claim protection under California’s highly-protective, employee-friendly laws. The Court also rejected, on summary adjudication, the claim that the CEO was not an “employee” and merely an “officer.”

Corporations with California-based officers who may also be seen as employees should consider taking steps to prevent their identification of these officers as employees.

To read the opinion of the court click this link: Lidow v. Superior Court

DOJ Extends Compliance Deadline for Means of Entry and Exit to Swimming Pools at Hotels and Other Public Accommodations

On the disability access front, on May 21, 2012, the DOJ issued the following regulations applicable to swimming pools at public accommodations (including hotels). Cutting through the regulatory jargon, the DOJ’S action extended to January 31, 2013, a compliance deadline that had been March 15, 2012 and was then extended to May 21, 2012. To read the final rule in its entirety click the below link.

http://www.ada.gov//regs2010/ADAregs2012/finalrule_existingpools_FR_may21.htm

The compliance deadline applies to rules passed in the Fall of 2010 that require hotels and other public accommodations to install pool lifts for entry and exit in new construction and alterations. Hotels with existing pools must consider whether it is “readily achievable” to install lifts.

For more information on the substance of the rules, the DOJ recently issued guidance, which can be viewed by clicking the below link.

http://www.ada.gov//pools_2010.htm

7th Circuit Finds Pharmaceutical Sales Reps Exempt Under FLSA Administrative Exemption

In consolidated cases decided on May 9, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which covers employers in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) held that pharmaceutical sales representatives employed by Abbott Laboratories, Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co. are exempt from overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “administrative” exemption. In so holding, the Seventh Circuit joins the Third Circuit, which similarly held in February 2010 that Johnson & Johnson sales representatives were covered by the administrative exemption. On the other hand, the Second Circuit ruled in July 2010 that the administrative exemption did not apply to sales reps of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp.

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling on the administrative exemption comes at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments, and expects to rule next month, in a case addressing whether the FLSA’s separate “outside sales” exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales reps employed by GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Depending on the Supreme Court’s ruling and the particular circumstances of the employees involved, employers in the Seventh Circuit may soon have a double-barreled argument that their outside sales employees are exempt from FLSA overtime pay requirements under both the administrative and outside sales exemptions. The consolidated Seventh Circuit cases are Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 10-3855, and Jirak, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Nos. 11-1980 and 11-2131.

New Jersey Appellate Division Re-affirms Employers Are Not Required To Provide Indefinite Leaves Of Absence Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently re-affirmed that an employer is not required to provide an indefinite leave of absence in order to meet its obligation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) to reasonably accommodate the disabilities of its employees. In Lozo-Weber v. New Jersey Department of Human Services, Plaintiff, who suffered from lupus, requested a medical leave of absence and submitted a doctor’s note indicating that she would be unable to work for at least one year. The employer placed Plaintiff on leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Once she exhausted her FMLA time, the employer agreed to an accommodation of an additional six months of unpaid leave, advising her in writing that it could not continue the leave longer than that due to operational needs. When the extended leave was about to expire, Plaintiff requested additional leave as an accommodation, but did not provide a date certain by which she would be able to return to work. Instead, the doctor’s note stated only that she would need to be out of work for “approximately” six more weeks. At the expiration of the approved six months leave, the employer terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

In affirming summary judgment for the employer on the claim of failure to accommodate under the LAD, the Appellate Division observed that the employer had provided Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation by extending the FMLA leave by an additional six months. The court further held that an indefinite leave of absence was not a reasonable accommodation where the Plaintiff admittedly could not say when she would be able to return to work. While courts recognize that “reasonable accommodation” includes medical leaves of absence for reasonable periods of time, employers in New Jersey should look carefully at the notes submitted by doctors in support of requests for continued medical leaves, as there is no requirement to provide indefinite leave to employees who are physically unable to work and who cannot specify how long they will need to be out of work.