An Illinois salesman had injured his back before he joined his employer in 1998. The employer acknowledged knowing of the injury by 2002 at the latest. But the salesman repeatedly testified that the employer refused to accommodate the restrictions his doctor had imposed. Plaintiff and defendants have spent much time in court, and will have to spend more.What happened. AutoZone promoted “Sampson” to the position of auto parts manager at its Macomb store in 1999. Sampson explained to several courts that the back injury led to what his doctor called “myofascial tenderness”: Following certain kinds of physical activity, especially twisting his trunk, his muscles would spasm, causing debilitating pain, swelling and sweating, and sometimes headaches and vomiting.
Following a medical leave in April 2003, he submitted a letter from his doctor saying that he could not mop or buff the store floor—ever. AutoZone apparently threatened to fire him, so the doctor loosened the restriction to “only occasionally.” But when the store manager required him to mop the floor, Sampson was thrown into extreme pain and required another medical leave.
He needed to return with the more stringent restrictions, but AutoZone refused. Sampson was put on involuntary medical leave for a year and then fired. He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) had been violated. EEOC went to federal district court on his behalf, where a judge rejected the failure to accommodate claim but sent a further retaliation claim to a jury. The jury ruled in AutoZone’s favor, and EEOC appealed only the failure to accommodate charge to the 7th Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
What the court said. Sampson and his wife testified that 4 or 5 days a week, she had to help him bathe and dress. AutoZone argued that Sampson had never submitted medical documentation of those limits. Appellate judges noted that the ADA Amendments Act that was effective at the start of 2009 did not apply retroactively to Sampson’s claims of 2003 through 2005. But they also ruled that the employer should have accepted testimony that he was “substantially limited in the major life activity of caring for himself.” He therefore deserved accommodation, and his claim was sent back to the district court for reconsideration. EEOC v. AutoZone, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 10-1353 (2010).
Point to remember: Employees need not submit medical documentation of substantial limitations; employers must accept what the employees themselves say about their limits.
PRABHAKAR MANI
PGDM 2 SEM
Following a medical leave in April 2003, he submitted a letter from his doctor saying that he could not mop or buff the store floor—ever. AutoZone apparently threatened to fire him, so the doctor loosened the restriction to “only occasionally.” But when the store manager required him to mop the floor, Sampson was thrown into extreme pain and required another medical leave.
He needed to return with the more stringent restrictions, but AutoZone refused. Sampson was put on involuntary medical leave for a year and then fired. He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) had been violated. EEOC went to federal district court on his behalf, where a judge rejected the failure to accommodate claim but sent a further retaliation claim to a jury. The jury ruled in AutoZone’s favor, and EEOC appealed only the failure to accommodate charge to the 7th Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
What the court said. Sampson and his wife testified that 4 or 5 days a week, she had to help him bathe and dress. AutoZone argued that Sampson had never submitted medical documentation of those limits. Appellate judges noted that the ADA Amendments Act that was effective at the start of 2009 did not apply retroactively to Sampson’s claims of 2003 through 2005. But they also ruled that the employer should have accepted testimony that he was “substantially limited in the major life activity of caring for himself.” He therefore deserved accommodation, and his claim was sent back to the district court for reconsideration. EEOC v. AutoZone, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 10-1353 (2010).
Point to remember: Employees need not submit medical documentation of substantial limitations; employers must accept what the employees themselves say about their limits.
PRABHAKAR MANI
PGDM 2 SEM
No comments:
Post a Comment