Fleming v. Yuma Regional Medical Center
587 F.3d 938, 22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1033, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25406 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits disability discrimination by entities receiving federal funds, extends its protections to independent contractors. The Act incorporates the 'standards' of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to define what constitutes discrimination, but not Title I's limitation of coverage to traditional employee-employer relationships.
Facts:
- Dr. Lester Fleming, an anesthesiologist who has sickle cell anemia, applied for a position at Yuma Regional Medical Center (Yuma).
- Upon learning of Fleming’s medical condition, Yuma informed him that it would not be able to accommodate his operating room and call schedules.
- Fleming declined to accept this condition of employment.
- The refusal to accommodate effectively canceled the contract between Fleming and Yuma.
- For the purposes of the legal question on appeal, it is undisputed that Fleming would have been an independent contractor, not an employee.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Fleming filed a lawsuit against Yuma Regional Medical Center in federal district court, alleging employment discrimination in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Yuma.
- The district court's ruling was based on two conclusions: that Fleming was an independent contractor and that the Rehabilitation Act does not protect independent contractors.
- Fleming, as the appellant, appealed the district court's legal ruling on the scope of the Rehabilitation Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Yuma is the appellee.
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 § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act extend to a claim of employment discrimination brought by an independent contractor?
Opinions:
Majority - Bybee, Circuit Judge
Yes, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act extends to a claim of employment discrimination brought by an independent contractor. The court reasoned that § 504(d) incorporates only the substantive 'standards' for proving discrimination from Title I of the ADA, not Title I in its entirety, including its limitation to the employer-employee context. The court's reasoning has several pillars: 1) The text and scope of the Rehabilitation Act are broader than Title I of the ADA, covering 'any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,' not just employment. 2) Congress's use of the word 'standards' in § 504(d) indicates selective borrowing for guidance on what constitutes a violation, not a complete 'jot-for-jot' incorporation that would restrict who is covered. 3) A full incorporation of Title I would improperly narrow the Rehabilitation Act's historically broad protections, for example, by importing the ADA's 15-employee minimum for employers, which contradicts the Rehab Act's wider definition of covered programs. 4) This reading avoids creating statutory duplication and potential conflicts between provisions in the two acts. The court explicitly sided with the Tenth Circuit's reasoning in Schrader v. Ray over conflicting decisions from the Sixth and Eighth Circuits.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a circuit split on whether the Rehabilitation Act's employment protections cover independent contractors, aligning the Ninth Circuit with the Tenth against the Sixth and Eighth. This split increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually address the issue to create a uniform national rule. The ruling significantly expands disability rights within the Ninth Circuit, extending protections to the growing number of workers in the gig economy and other independent contracting roles who work with federally funded entities. The case serves as a key example of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that a statute's reference to another does not automatically import all of the referenced statute's limitations, especially when doing so would undermine the primary statute's broad remedial purpose.
