Disqualifying applicants for a particular job

Disqualifying applicants for a particular job

EEOC v Woodbridge Corp., CA8, 263 F.3d 812

Mathews v The Denver Post, CA10, 2001 WL 967797

The Woodbridge and Mathews cases concern similar issues: disqualifying an individual with a disability for a particular job or assignment.

The Woodbridge case asks: Does the employer violate the ADA if it rejects an applicant a particular job because test reveal that he or she is susceptible to certain types of injuries?

The Mathews case asks: Does the employer violate the ADA if it rejects an employee with epilepsy for a job because an essential function of the job requires the operation of heavy machinery?

The Woodbridge Case

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Woodbridge Corporation, contending that it violated the ADA when it excluded nineteen applicants for jobs on one of its manufacturing lines because of test results that indicate those applicants may be susceptible to sustaining injuries from repetitive motion.

The Circuit Court affirmed a district court's determination that the ADA was not violated as such individuals were not “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA.

EEOC alleged that Woodbridge unlawfully discriminated against individuals rejected because they were determined to be more likely than others to develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

The company, a producer of polyurethane foam pads used in automobile seats, based its decisions rejecting these applicants on the basis of results of a test designed to reflect abnormal wrist neurometric readings in connection with repetitive wrist motions that its workers on a specific manufacturing foam line would experience.*

Applicants with abnormal neurometry readings were not hired for these foam line production positions although they were considered to be eligible for jobs in other areas within the Woodbridge's plant. EEOC, however, contended that Woodbridge discriminated against the rejected applicants on the basis of “a perceived disability, as Woodbridge regarded the applicants as substantially limited in the ability to work.”

The Circuit Court said that the ADA defines disability as “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” Major life activities include caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, learning and working.**

According to the ruling, an impairment is “substantially limiting” if it renders an individual unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform, or if it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to an average person in the general population. Such a determination is to be made on a case-by-case basis.

The district court held that the “only documented perception of the [rejected] applicants is that they were not physically qualified to perform the unique requirements of [specific] Woodbridge manufacturing positions. This perception does not prevent the applicants from obtaining employment in a broad class of jobs.”

In contrast, a person is deemed to be substantially limited with respect to working if he or she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.”

In making such a determination, the court considers such factors as the number and type of jobs from which the impaired individual is disqualified; the geographical area to which the individual has reasonable access; and the individual's job training, experience, and expectations.

As the purpose of the ADA is to prevent “substantial personal hardship in the form of significant reduction in a person's real work opportunities,” the court must ask if a person's particular impairment constitutes a significant barrier to employment in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs.

The issue here was whether the nineteen applicants were regarded as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skill, and abilities.”

According to the decision, “the inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.”

What is required to prevail? Proof that the individual's overall employment opportunities are limited rather than being viewed as unqualified for a particular job or assignment. In other words, it is necessary to show that the individual is precluded from being selected for more than one type of job. Being disqualified for but a single, specialized job or a particular job of choice does not satisfy this requirement.

In the words of the Circuit Court: If jobs utilizing an individual's skills are available, one is not precluded from a substantial class of jobs. Similarly, if a host of different types of jobs are available, one is not precluded from a broad range of jobs.

Finding that the nineteen applicants represented by EEOC were not precluded from employment in more than one type of specialized job, the Circuit Court sustained the lower court's granting summary judgment dismissing EEOC's complaint.

The Mathews Case

In Mathews, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, ruled that an employee with epilepsy is not qualified for a job as a journey-level mailer at a newspaper because an essential function of his job requires his operating heavy machinery.

John Mathews sued his former employer, the Denver Post, claiming that it had laid him off in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the Post, holding that Mathews had not shown he was a disabled person within the meaning of the Act, nor had he shown he was qualified to do his job during the period November 1994 to May 1996.***

The Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's determination.

Mathews, who started working for the Post in 1983, was promoted to journeyman level mailer in 1988, and is currently employed by the Post. Mathews suffers from epilepsy, including grand mal seizures. He suffered a grand mal seizure on September 6, 1994 and was hospitalization for two days. His doctor told him not to return to work for one month.

Based on the information received from Mathews' personal physician, Dr. Jack Sylman, in a letter dated October 8, 1994, the Post terminated Mathews on the grounds that his medical restrictions prevented him from performing the essential functions of his job. At the same time the Post attempted to assist Mathews by looking for a position at the newspaper that he could perform without offending his medical restrictions.

Dr. Sylman stated that Mathews did have an epileptic seizure and “I would not be comfortable with him either driving, or being near or operating heavy equipment for at least three months. This is a fairly standard guideline generally accepted within the community.” Dr. Sylman also told the Post that Mathews has epilepsy and has had isolated grand mal seizures, some of which have occurred at work. He also said that: Unfortunately there is no cure for this condition though reasonable control has been achieved with Dilantin. However, I cannot assure him that he might not have isolated sporadic seizures without warning. Ideally, it would be best if he were not to drive or work around heavy machinery.

Mathews sought to return to work, suggesting that the Post accommodate him by letting him do the part of the journey-level mailer job that did not involve working with machines. The Post rejected the proposal. On May 9, 1996, Mathews's doctor lifted his medical restrictions, stating that he “should be able to drive or work with machinery.” The Post then rehired Mathews back at his old job.

Mathews sued the Post, claiming that the Post discharged him in violation of the ADA, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability, and fired him in retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC.

The district court held that Mathews had not shown that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Although Mathews argued that his epilepsy substantially limited him in the major life activity of working, the court decided that he was only able to show that his epilepsy interfered with his ability to do particular jobs. To prevail in his ADA action, Mathews was required to show that he was unable to do a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in order to establish that there was a substantial limitation on his ability to work.

Further, said the court, Mathews had not shown he was a qualified individual, because he could not perform the journey-level mailer's job while he was under doctor's orders not to work with or around dangerous machinery.

Mathews appealed. The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the district court had ruled correctly on the qualification issue and thus it was unnecessary to address the question of whether Mathews was disabled.

* The test used by Woodbridge for this evaluation was discontinue as the company had concerns as to its reliability.

** In Sutton v United Air Lines, Inc., 527 US 471, the Supreme Court suggested, but did not specifically hold, that working was a major life activity

*** Relying on Mathews' physician's statement, the Post did not allow Mathews to work during this period.

Civil deputy sheriff should not have to wait to be harmed before being given weapon and firearms training

Civil deputy sheriff should not have to wait to be harmed before being given weapon and firearms training

Mtr. of Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs Assoc.; Arbitration Award, PERB Case A200-439

Monroe County and the Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs Association submitted the following issue to PERB Arbitrator James A. Gross: Whether the Monroe County Sheriff's Office created an unusual work condition by failing to provide firearms and proper training in connection with firearms for the Civil Bureau.

Holding that the Sheriff's Office did, in fact, create an unusual work condition by failing to provide civil deputy sheriffs with firearms and training, Arbitrator Gross directed that Monroe County “provide firearms to civil deputies when they perform their duties.”

The parties apparently conceded that the grievance, as presented to the arbitrator, was subject to the contract grievance procedure pursuant to Article 36.2.1. of the collective bargaining agreement. Article 36.2.1 set out the definition of a grievance and provides as follows:

A grievance shall be defined as any claimed violation of a specific provision of this agreement, or any matter that relates to employee health and safety.

The County argued that “the issuance of weapons does not comply with the duties and functions of non-criminal civil deputies position [sic]” and that its civil deputies are not performing police functions. The County also maintained that there was no evidence that any civil deputy had been injured performing his or her duties “for at least 30 years” as a result of his or her performing civil deputy sheriff duties.

The Association contended that the civil deputies should carry a weapon because they are perceived to be law enforcement personnel and displayed badges. According to the Association:

1. A badge is recognized as a police presence; and

2. Any person identified as a law enforcement officer is automatically in a high-risk situation either by becoming a target for hostility or by being drawn into hostile and dangerous situations involving others.

Arbitrator Gross ruled that the County violated Article 36.2.1 by failing to provide firearms to its civil deputy sheriffs. 

After considering the testimony of witnesses, the arbitrator's concluded that:It would be irresponsible to deny these Civil Deputies the equipment they need to meet the greatest threats to their safety simply because no Civil Deputy in Monroe County has been killed or seriously injured in the performance of their duties - as has happened elsewhere in New York State. No person should have to wait to be harmed before being given adequate protection.

Using an employee personnel files to determine an appropriate disciplinary penalty

Using an employee personnel files to determine an appropriate disciplinary penalty

Bigelow v Trustees of the Village of Gouverneur, 63 NY2d 470

Perhaps the leading case concerning the use of an employee's personnel records in disciplinary procedures is the Court of Appeals’ decision in Bigelow v Trustees of the Village of Gouverneur

In Bigelow, the Court of Appeals held that if a civil service employee is found guilty of misconduct, a public employer may consider material included in the employee's personnel files in determining the appropriate sanction.

The employee, however, must first be advised of the information in his or her personnel record that the appointing authority will consider in determining the penalty and then must be given an opportunity to submit a written response concerning that information.

Individual serving in major nontenured policy-making or advisory position ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits upon separation

Individual serving in major nontenured policy-making or advisory position ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits upon separation

Fromer v Commissioner of Labor, 286 AD2d 816

The critical issue in this aspect of the litigation brought by Howard A. Fromer in his effort to obtain unemployment insurance benefits was his employment status with the now abolished State Energy Office: was he an independent officer of the agency?

The Appellate Division, Third Department, sustained a ruling by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals board holding that Fromer was not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits following his termination when his position was abolished. Fromer had served as general counsel to the State Energy Office from October 1988 until it was abolished on March 31, 1995.

The reason for Fromer's disqualification for benefits: The Board determined that Fromer served in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position. Accordingly, he was “statutorily excluded” for such benefits by Labor Law Section 565(2)(e).

Earlier the Appellate Division had remanded the case to the Board for it to consider Fromer's argument that because he was a veteran within the meaning of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law, he was entitled to benefits [268 AD2d 707]. In considering this issue, the Board concluded that Fromer was an independent officer and, therefore, he was not entitled to limited tenure under Section 75. Fromer again appealed.

The Appellate Division again sustained the Board's determination, ruling that the protection afforded by Section 75 does not extend to those who hold “the position of private secretary, cashier or deputy of any official or department.” This listing, said the court, has been judicially interpreted to include independent officers, citing O'Day v Yeager, 308 NY 580.

Quoting from O'Day, the court commented that in determining whether a particular person is an independent officer, “[n]o automatic rule, no definitive signpost, is at hand, for it may fairly be said that each case must be decided upon its own facts.”

The court rejected Fromer's argument that because there was no statutory provision creating the position of general counsel for the Energy Office, there was no support for the Board's finding that he was an independent officer. It said that “[c]reation of the office by statute is a guide and not the sine qua non of whether a civil service position is independent.”

The Appellate Division said the record demonstrated that Fromer's position with the Energy Office was not that of a subordinate employee and that all of his duties and responsibilities required a high degree of initiative and independent thought and judgment.

Workers' Compensation Law benefits not available for “mental injury” resulting from an employer’s lawful personnel actions

Workers' Compensation Law benefits not available for “mental injury” resulting from an employer’s lawful personnel actions

Matter of Veeder v New York State Police Dept., 2011 NY Slip Op 05921, Appellate Division, Third Department

The widow of a Division of State Police forensic scientist, Donna Veeder, filed an application for workers' compensation death benefits, claiming that her husband became depressed and committed suicide as a result of actions she alleged were taken against him by the Division in the course of an investigation of her late husband’s performance of his duties.

The Workers' Compensation Law Board affirmed, concluding that Workers' Compensation Law §2(7)* barred the claim since the Division's actions were made in good faith and were the result of "a lawful personnel decision involving an investigation and potential disciplinary action."

Veeder appealed contending that that §2(7) was inapplicable because her husband had committed suicide and thus his injuries cannot be "solely mental."

The Appellate Division rejected this argument, explaining that “The unrefuted psychiatric evidence contained in the record, as well as the suicide letters, make clear that decedent's suicide was predominantly the product of the depression and stress he experienced from the employer's inquiry” into his performance of his duties. Accordingly, if work-related stress is not compensable under Workers' Compensation Law §2(7), “it necessarily follows that any physical injury that resulted therefrom cannot be compensable either.”

Considering Veeder’s argument that the Division’s actions in this case were not undertaken in the context of a "disciplinary action" within the meaning of the statute, the Appellate Division decided that Board's finding lacks substantial evidence in the record.

The court noted that there was “unequivocally” testimony that “there was no disciplinary action underway during the inquiry” and that the purpose of the meetings was to review the procedures employed by Veeder’s late husband “in conducting the testing and to look into ways for the laboratory to improve its testing methods.”

As the Board, having found the Division's actions to constitute a "disciplinary action" under Workers' Compensation Law §2(7), it did not reach the employer's alternative argument that its actions in that regard could also be deemed an evaluation of decedent's work under the statute, and that the stress experienced by decedent was no greater than that normally encountered in the work environment.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division vacated the Board’s determination and remanded the matter to it “for resolution of these issues.”

* Workers' Compensation Law §2(7) provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he terms 'injury' and 'personal injury' shall not include an injury which is solely mental and is based on workrelated stress if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer"

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05921.htm