Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Agro Distribution, LLC
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 959, 555 F.3d 462, 21 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 788 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An impairment does not substantially limit a major life activity under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if it is manageable with common, ordinary mitigating measures. Furthermore, an employer does not fail to provide a reasonable accommodation when an employee preemptively refuses to perform an assigned task without attempting to use an accommodation that has historically been sufficient.
Facts:
- Henry Velez has a lifelong congenital condition called anhidrotic ectodermal dysplasia, which prevents him from sweating.
- Throughout his life, Velez managed his condition while performing strenuous manual labor in hot climates by using common cooling methods such as taking breaks, drinking water, and using fans.
- Velez was employed by Agro Distribution as a truck driver, a job which included manual labor, and management was aware of his condition.
- Agro Distribution had an established practice of allowing Velez to take breaks to cool down whenever he needed them, without requiring him to seek permission.
- A new manager, Will Griffin, scheduled all non-office personnel, including Velez, to load empty cattle feed barrels at 6:00 a.m. on a summer morning.
- Velez informed Griffin that he could not perform the task because he believed it would be too hot and he would get sick.
- Griffin told Velez that he had to participate or he would 'suffer the consequences,' but did not state that Velez would be denied his usual accommodation of taking breaks.
- Velez did not report for the work assignment and was terminated for insubordination.
Procedural Posture:
- Henry Velez filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- After an investigation and a failed attempt at conciliation, the EEOC sued Agro Distribution, LLC in U.S. District Court on Velez's behalf for violations of the ADA.
- Following discovery, which included Velez's deposition, Agro Distribution moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Agro, dismissing the EEOC's case.
- The district court also awarded attorneys' fees and costs to Agro, finding the EEOC's suit was groundless after Velez's deposition.
- The EEOC, as the appellant, appealed both the summary judgment dismissal and the award of attorneys' fees to the U.S. 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:
Does an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating an employee for insubordination when the employee refuses to perform a task, where the employee's physical impairment is managed by ordinary mitigating measures and the employer has an established practice of allowing the employee to take breaks as a reasonable accommodation?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones
No, the employer did not violate the ADA. The court held that Velez was not disabled within the meaning of the Act and, even if he were, Agro did not fail to provide a reasonable accommodation. First, Velez's impairment did not 'substantially limit' a major life activity. Following the precedent of Sutton v. United Air Lines, the court assessed Velez's condition in its mitigated state. Velez's mitigating measures—taking breaks, drinking water, and using fans—are common, ordinary behaviors, not an onerous regimen like dialysis as seen in Heiko. Because he could regulate his body temperature and perform manual labor using these ordinary methods, his impairment did not rise to the level of a substantial limitation required by the ADA. Second, Agro did not deny Velez a reasonable accommodation. Agro's established practice of allowing Velez to take breaks as needed was a sufficient accommodation, and there was no evidence it would be denied for this task. Velez's demand to be excused from the task entirely was a request for his preferred accommodation, not necessarily a reasonable one. By refusing to show up for work, Velez preemptively ended the interactive process and made it impossible to determine if the existing accommodation would have been sufficient, a situation analogous to Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc. An employer is not required to accept an employee's speculative assumption that a proven accommodation will be denied.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the pre-ADA Amendments Act standard from Sutton v. United Air Lines, requiring courts to evaluate a person's disability status after considering the positive effects of mitigating measures. It significantly narrowed the definition of 'disability' by suggesting that individuals who can manage their conditions with common, everyday actions may not qualify for ADA protection. The ruling also places a burden on the employee to engage with and test an employer's offered accommodation, rather than preemptively refusing a work assignment based on speculation. While the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 later rejected the Sutton holding regarding mitigating measures, this case remains an important example of that prior, more restrictive, legal framework.
