In Johnson v. Weld County, a government employee brought a Title VII and ADA claim against her employer alleging sex and disability discrimination. Following the lower court's entry of summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims, the federal Appeals Court held, inter alia, that the plaintiff, who had multiple sclerosis, was not a "person with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA because she was not substantially limited in her ability to work. Recognizing that her disease could no doubt progress and become more debilitating and likely limit her ability to perform certain functions of her job in the future, the court concluded, however, that at the time in question "despite her disease, [she] performed acceptable work."
The Court's holding in this respect highlights the importance of analyzing a person's limitation in their ability to engage in a major life activity (in this case work) even with a physical disability when considering a person's claim that they are entitled to certain rights under the ADA. Whether a person has a physical or mental disability is only part of the question -- the person must also be substantially limited in a major life activity.
In addition, the plaintiff claimed that shortly after she complained of discrimination her supervisors retaliated against her by giving her the cold shoulder, sitting farther away from her at meetings, and generally avoiding her. The Court held that though these alleged snubs were surely unpleasant and disturbing to the plaintiff, they are insufficient to support a claim of retaliation.
This case provides additional guidance, then, when making determinations as to whether a certain action is sufficiently adverse and material to support a claim of retaliation. Not all actions are sufficient to support a claim of retaliation, only those that are materially adverse.
A copy of this decision can be read here.
If you would like guidance or counsel in handling and defending disability and retaliation claims, please contact Eric Gunderson and/or visit the Farrell & Gunderson website.
The Court's holding in this respect highlights the importance of analyzing a person's limitation in their ability to engage in a major life activity (in this case work) even with a physical disability when considering a person's claim that they are entitled to certain rights under the ADA. Whether a person has a physical or mental disability is only part of the question -- the person must also be substantially limited in a major life activity.
In addition, the plaintiff claimed that shortly after she complained of discrimination her supervisors retaliated against her by giving her the cold shoulder, sitting farther away from her at meetings, and generally avoiding her. The Court held that though these alleged snubs were surely unpleasant and disturbing to the plaintiff, they are insufficient to support a claim of retaliation.
This case provides additional guidance, then, when making determinations as to whether a certain action is sufficiently adverse and material to support a claim of retaliation. Not all actions are sufficient to support a claim of retaliation, only those that are materially adverse.
A copy of this decision can be read here.
If you would like guidance or counsel in handling and defending disability and retaliation claims, please contact Eric Gunderson and/or visit the Farrell & Gunderson website.
Posts
