InsideCounsel » June 2008
Court Upholds “Perceived Disability” Decision
Jimmy Wilson had been working as a supervisor for Bamberg, S.C.-based Phoenix Specialty Manufacturing Co. Inc. for 10 years when he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 1998. A panic attack during a May 2001 meeting alerted his superiors to his condition. Wilson’s physician said he was able to continue performing the functions of his job, but a little more than a year later, Wilson was laid off.
Wilson sued, alleging his firing was a pretext for discrimination based on a perception that he was disabled. In Wilson v. Phoenix Specialty Manu. Co. Inc., the South Carolina Federal District Court found that company management regarded Wilson as disabled when in fact he was not and terminated him as a result of his perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The court rejected the company’s contention that Wilson was laid off during a reduction in force necessitated by business conditions.
In January, the 4th Circuit upheld the decision, adding a new layer of complexity to a previous standard set by the Supreme Court regarding employee claims filed against an employer under the ADA.
“They are really splitting legal hairs here,” says Nancy Delogu, shareholder
in Littler Mendelson. “The hair that is being split is whether he was being regarded as impaired and substantially limited or regarded as impaired but not substantially impaired.”
Split Decision
The court concluded the employer regarded Wilson as disabled even though his impairment didn’t limit a “major life activity,” the standard for determining eligibility for ADA protection set in the 2002 Supreme Court case Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Ella Williams.
The departure from this standard split the court in Wilson, with Judge Paul V. Niemeyer arguing in dissent that the majority failed to strictly interpret Toyota. He said Phoenix’s belief about Wilson’s inability to perform specific job functions did not prove that the company regarded him as substantially limited in performing major life activities.
During the trial, Wilson’s attorneys pointed to an e-mail Phoenix’s president Robert Hurst sent to an associate stating Wilson “qualifies for ADA designation and we will have to consider accommodations.” But when Wilson requested a larger computer screen and help with typing, his requests were denied.
While the court did not rule on the issue of whether the company violated Wilson’s ADA rights by failing to provide accommodations, Delogu says the decision offers a road map of what employers should not do when trying to determine if an employee is disabled.
“It sounds like they kept close tabs on his medical status but didn’t reach out to him to suggest ways he could do the work better,” she says. “They weren’t giving him the chance to perform with accommodations.”
