Inability to perform essential duties trumps violation of American with Disabilities Act claims
Kees v Wallenstein, CA 9, 161 F.3d 1196
A number of correction officers in the State of Washington had been placed on light duty as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty or as the result of non-work related illness. Their respective physicians had indicated that they should not have direct contact with prison inmates to avoid the possibility of further injury.
When the officers were removed from their positions they sued the Kings County Department of Adult Detention [Arthur Wallenstein, director], contending that their termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], 42 USC. Sections 12101-12213. The State of Washington, representing the county, argued that the officers involved were not “qualified individuals under the ADA” because their inability to have direct inmate contact prevented them from performing the essential functions of the corrections officer job.
The correction officers had informed Wallenstein that their conditions were permanent, and that no reasonable accommodation would allow them to have direct contact with inmates. After determining that direct inmate contact is an essential function of the corrections officer position, OHRM and Wallenstein separated plaintiffs from their jobs as corrections officers. The county had made a settlement offer -- each officer was offered a DAD non-commissioned, support position such as office technician, jail receptionist, or jail aide, at the full corrections officer salary. These employment offers were rejected because the positions required direct inmate contact.
The Circuit Court of Appeals said that in order to prevail on their claim, plaintiffs must establish that:
1. They are disabled within the meaning of the ADA;
2. They are qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job; and
3. The county terminated them because of their disability.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sustained the district court’s finding that the officers “are not qualified individuals with disabilities under the ADA.” It said that “no accommodation would allow them to have direct inmate contact, an essential function of the corrections officer position” as “their ability to restrain inmates during an emergency is critical to jail security.”
Another factor considered by the Circuit Court: the controlling collective bargaining agreement indicated that corrections officers are expected to rotate among several positions, most of which involve inmate contact.
NYPPL