Gil v. VORTEX, LLC
16 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 171, 697 F. Supp. 2d 234, 23 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 58 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, an individual states a plausible claim for "regarded as" disability discrimination by alleging they were subjected to a prohibited adverse employment action because of an actual or perceived impairment, regardless of whether the employer believed the impairment substantially limited a major life activity.
Facts:
- Luis Gil, an employee of Vortex, LLC since 1992, had monocular vision (blindness in one eye) for the duration of his employment as a punch press operator.
- In 2007, after Gil sustained a minor injury, Vortex questioned his ability to work safely due to his vision and demanded a doctor's note, though it later withdrew the request.
- In the summer of 2008, Gil suffered a work-related hernia.
- In October 2008, after Gil's doctors submitted bills to Vortex’s workers’ compensation insurer for the hernia, Vortex immediately attempted to terminate him, citing a false reason about a missing doctor's note regarding his vision.
- After Gil protested, Vortex rescinded the termination but transferred him to a less desirable position in the shipping department.
- Gil took a six-week medical leave for hernia surgery in November 2008.
- Upon his return in January 2009, Vortex informed Gil that there was no work available and terminated his employment.
- A Vortex supervisor later told Gil's daughter that the company terminated him because it was concerned he might injure himself again due to his vision.
Procedural Posture:
- Luis Gil filed a charge of discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and cross-filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC issued Gil a Notice of Right to Sue.
- Gil withdrew his MCAD complaint and filed this lawsuit against Vortex in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging disability discrimination, FMLA violations, and workers' compensation retaliation.
- Vortex filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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 employee state a plausible claim for disability discrimination under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 by alleging that their employer terminated them due to unfounded fears about a physical impairment, even without showing the employer believed the impairment substantially limited a major life activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Stearns, District Judge
Yes. An employee states a plausible claim for disability discrimination under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) by alleging termination based on an employer's perception of an impairment. The court first determined that the ADAAA, which became effective January 1, 2009, applied to Gil's case, as his final termination occurred on January 2, 2009. The court emphasized that Congress enacted the ADAAA to broaden the definition of disability and to explicitly reject restrictive Supreme Court interpretations in cases like Sutton v. United Air Lines and Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams. For a "regarded as" claim, the ADAAA eliminated the previous requirement that a plaintiff prove the employer believed the perceived impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Instead, a plaintiff need only show they were subjected to a prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment. Here, Vortex's expressed fears about Gil's safety, its demands for medical certification regarding his vision, and the supervisor's statement to Gil's daughter collectively establish a plausible allegation that Vortex perceived him as disabled and terminated him as a result. The court denied Vortex's motion to dismiss the disability discrimination and FMLA claims, but granted the motion to dismiss the workers' compensation retaliation claim.
Analysis:
This decision is significant as an early interpretation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, illustrating the lowered pleading standard for "regarded as" disability claims. It shifts the legal focus from an extensive analysis of whether an employee is truly "disabled" to whether the employer took adverse action based on a perception of impairment. By rejecting the pre-ADAAA analysis from Sutton, the court makes it substantially easier for plaintiffs to survive motions to dismiss, as they no longer need to allege that their employer held a specific belief about the impairment substantially limiting a major life activity. This case affirms Congress's intent to broaden the ADA's protections and hold employers accountable for actions based on stereotypes or fears about an employee's physical or mental condition.
