U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigation, Ltd.
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9432, 820 F. Supp. 1060, 2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 561 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To defeat a motion for summary judgment in a case brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they are a 'qualified individual with a disability' who can perform the essential functions of their job, with or without reasonable accommodation.
Facts:
- Charles Wessel was hired as Executive Director for AIC Security Investigations, Ltd. in February 1986, holding the highest management position in the security guard division.
- Wessel had a history of health issues, including emphysema and a 1987 lung cancer diagnosis, after which he recuperated and returned to work.
- In April 1992, Wessel was diagnosed with four inoperable brain tumors, and his doctors informed him his condition was terminal with a prognosis of six to twelve months to live.
- Following the terminal diagnosis, Wessel continued to work while undergoing radiation treatments, which sometimes required him to leave work in the early afternoon.
- On June 6, 1992, Ruth Vrdolyak became the sole shareholder of AIC's parent company following the death of the previous owner.
- Wessel’s physicians advised him not to drive due to the risk of seizures, and AIC offered to provide him with a driver, which he refused.
- Prior to his termination, Wessel had never received any warnings or been subject to any disciplinary action regarding his job performance or attendance.
- On July 30, 1992, Wessel was informed by telephone that his employment with AIC was terminated effective July 31, 1992.
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Charles Wessel (as Intervening Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against AIC Security Investigations, LTD., AIC International, LTD., and Ruth Vrdolyak in U.S. District Court.
- The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated against Wessel on the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor and dismiss the case without a trial.
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 a plaintiff with terminal cancer create a genuine issue of material fact regarding his ability to perform the essential functions of a high-level executive position, sufficient to defeat an employer's motion for summary judgment under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Guzman, United States Magistrate Judge
Yes, a plaintiff with terminal cancer creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding his ability to perform the essential functions of his job sufficient to defeat summary judgment. A factual dispute exists as to whether Wessel was a 'qualified individual with a disability' at the time of his discharge. The court's role at the summary judgment stage is not to weigh evidence, but to determine if a genuine issue exists for trial. Here, there are conflicting accounts regarding Wessel's job performance, attendance, and the reason for the transfer of his duties. For example, AIC claimed Wessel's absences prevented him from performing essential functions, but his direct supervisor testified he was satisfied with Wessel's performance and that he worked long hours, including from home. Similarly, while AIC alleged Wessel's memory loss caused significant errors, the plaintiff provided evidence that the errors were clerical, quickly corrected, and that accommodations were possible. Finally, the court rejected AIC's 'direct threat' argument related to Wessel's driving, noting that driving was not an essential function of his job and that AIC itself had proposed a reasonable accommodation (a driver).
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the high bar an employer faces in trying to win an ADA case on summary judgment. It emphasizes that questions about what constitutes an 'essential function' and whether an employee can perform it are highly fact-intensive inquiries best resolved by a jury. The court's reasoning distinguishes between mere physical presence and actual job performance for executive roles, suggesting that results and overall management are more critical than a strict 9-to-5 schedule. This case establishes that as long as a plaintiff can produce contradictory evidence from supervisors, clients, or financial records, a court is unlikely to dismiss the case before trial, even in the face of a severe and terminal illness.
Unlock the full brief for U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigation, Ltd.