Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Heartway Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
466 F.3d 1156 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employee is "regarded as" disabled if their employer mistakenly believes that a non-limiting physical impairment substantially limits the major life activity of working, which can be proven by evidence that the employer subjectively perceived the employee as unable to perform a class of jobs.

Facts:

Janet Edwards has hepatitis C, a blood-borne viral disease, but by January 2001, the virus was undetectable in her blood and her condition did not substantially limit any major life activities.
On August 13, 2001, Edwards applied for a job at York Manor Nursing Center and indicated on a questionnaire that she was not under a doctor's care, despite ongoing monitoring for her condition.
York Manor hired Edwards, who eventually became a cook for the facility.
On April 1, 2002, Edwards accidentally cut her hand, and her employer learned she has hepatitis C.
The director of nursing told Edwards not to return without a doctor's permission.
On April 5, 2002, before Edwards could submit the doctor's note she had obtained clearing her for work, her kitchen supervisor called to inform her she was fired.
Facility administrator Mitchell Townsend later told Edwards, "Well, Janet, you having Hepatitis C, you will not work in our kitchen," but claimed he was firing her for falsifying her job application.
In a subsequent conversation with an EEOC investigator, Townsend asked, "How would you like to eat food containing her blood, if she ever cut her finger?" and stated that if clients found out, they would have a "mass exodus."

Procedural Posture:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint against Heartway Corporation in federal district court on behalf of Janet Edwards, alleging discrimination under the ADA.
The case was tried before a jury.
At the close of the EEOC's evidence, Heartway moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).
The district court denied the JMOL motion as to the discrimination claim but granted it as to the EEOC's claim for punitive damages.
The jury found in favor of the EEOC on the discrimination claim and awarded compensatory damages and back pay.
Heartway renewed its motion for JMOL on the discrimination claim, which the district court denied.
The EEOC appealed the district court's grant of JMOL on punitive damages to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Heartway cross-appealed the district court's denial of its JMOL on the underlying discrimination claim.

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 (ADA) by terminating an employee based on a perceived disability when the employer's statements suggest a subjective belief that the employee's impairment, which is not actually substantially limiting, disqualifies them from a class of jobs?

Opinions:

Majority - Ebel, J.

Yes. An employer violates the ADA by terminating an employee based on a perceived disability when sufficient evidence exists for a jury to find that the employer subjectively believed the employee's non-limiting impairment disqualified them from a class of jobs. The ADA's definition of disability includes being "regarded as" having a substantially limiting impairment. To prove this in the context of working, a plaintiff must show the employer believed the employee was significantly restricted in performing a "class of jobs" or a "broad range of jobs," not just a single job. Here, Townsend's statements—that Edwards "will not work in our kitchen" and his fears of blood contamination and a "mass exodus" of clients—provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to conclude he subjectively viewed Edwards as unfit for a broad class of food service jobs due to myths and fears about her hepatitis C. A reasonable jury could also find that the employer's proffered reason for termination, that Edwards falsified her application, was pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, because Townsend admitted to having training on the ADA and knowing it was illegal to fire someone for a disability, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider punitive damages, as it could infer he acted with malice or reckless indifference to Edwards's federally protected rights.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard for "regarded as" disabled claims under the ADA, emphasizing that an employer's subjective beliefs, inferred from discriminatory statements, can be sufficient to establish liability. It demonstrates that plaintiffs can prove an employer perceived them as unable to perform a "class of jobs" by highlighting statements that reflect stereotypes or fears, rather than requiring direct evidence that the employer analyzed the job market. The ruling also reinforces that an employer's proffered non-discriminatory reason for termination can be defeated as pretextual at the judgment-as-a-matter-of-law stage if there is sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus. Finally, it lowers the threshold for a punitive damages claim to reach a jury, suggesting that a manager's admission of basic ADA knowledge can be enough to show reckless indifference.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Heartway Corp. (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"