Cannon v. Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 531, 813 F.3d 586, 2016 WL 157983 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), an impairment constitutes a disability if it substantially limits a major life activity, such as lifting, with the term 'substantially limits' being construed broadly. An individual is also protected under the 'regarded as' prong if an employer takes an adverse action based on a perceived physical impairment, whether or not the impairment actually limits a major life activity.
Facts:
- Michael Cannon, a mechanical engineer, had unsuccessful surgery on his right rotator cuff, which left him unable to raise his right arm above shoulder level.
- Jacobs Field Services (JFS) offered Cannon a job as a field engineer at a Colorado mining site.
- During a pre-employment physical, Cannon disclosed his injury and a previous prescription for the pain reliever Ultram (Tramadol), stating he was no longer taking it.
- The examining doctor cleared Cannon for the position but recommended accommodations, including no lifting over ten pounds and no working with hands above shoulder level.
- Upon receiving the doctor's report, a JFS manager concluded Cannon would be unable to perform required job duties, including driving, climbing, and lifting, due to the proposed accommodations.
- JFS informed Cannon of its concerns regarding his ability to climb a ladder and use of Ultram, but not that a decision had already been made to rescind the offer.
- Cannon submitted a note from his doctor clearing him to climb vertical ladders and stating he was being weaned from Ultram.
- JFS formally rescinded the job offer based on Cannon's purported inability to climb a ladder and did not respond to his further attempts to demonstrate his ability, which included sending a video of himself climbing a ladder.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Cannon filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC found that JFS had engaged in disability discrimination and, after JFS refused conciliation, issued Cannon a Notice of Right to Sue.
- Cannon filed a lawsuit against JFS in United States District Court.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JFS, concluding that Cannon was not disabled under the ADA and was not qualified for the position.
- Cannon, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended, does a job applicant with a rotator cuff injury that limits his ability to lift raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is disabled and qualified for a field engineer position, thereby making summary judgment for the employer improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Gregg Costa
Yes. A job applicant with a rotator cuff injury raises genuine issues of material fact as to whether he is disabled and qualified for the position under the expanded definitions of the ADAAA, making summary judgment for the employer improper. The district court erred by applying the pre-amendment, more demanding standard for determining disability. The ADAAA of 2008 was enacted specifically to broaden the definition of disability and mandates that the term 'substantially limits' be interpreted in favor of broad coverage. Lifting is explicitly listed as a major life activity, and Cannon’s inability to lift his arm above his shoulder creates a genuine factual issue as to whether he is substantially limited in this activity compared to the general population. Furthermore, JFS's own internal communications, which show it rescinded the offer because of Cannon's physical limitations, are sufficient evidence for a jury to find he was 'regarded as' disabled, a standard that no longer requires the employer to believe the impairment limits a major life activity. A factual dispute also exists as to whether Cannon was a 'qualified individual,' as there is conflicting evidence regarding his ability to perform the essential functions of driving (due to contested Ultram use) and climbing a ladder (supported by his doctor's note and his own attempts to demonstrate his ability). Because these material facts are in dispute, the case must be remanded for trial.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the significant impact of the 2008 ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) in lowering the threshold for establishing a disability. It serves as a clear directive to lower courts to abandon the more restrictive pre-ADAAA analysis and instead apply a broad, inclusive standard. The ruling reinforces that the primary focus of ADA cases should be on the merits of the discrimination claim, not on whether the plaintiff is 'disabled enough.' The case also highlights the risk for employers who make swift, unilateral decisions about an applicant's capabilities without engaging in the required interactive process to explore potential accommodations.
