In 2008, Congress amended the Americans with Disabilities Act to expand the definition of medical conditions that qualify for protections under that statute. The amendments resulted from a number of federal court decisions concluding that seemingly serious conditions such as cancer did not result in limitations of major life activities. Since those amendments, most employers defending ADA claims have not focused on whether the alleged medical condition qualifies the plaintiff as a protected disabled individual. Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to breathe some life back into defending ADA claims based on the claimed medical condition.
In Andrews v. Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group, the plaintiff said that she has asthma and was terminated following a request to work from home due to the effect of COVID-19 disinfecting products used in the workplace on her condition. The company moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that her asthma created a substantial limitation of a major life activity. The district court agreed, dismissing the claim.
In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant. The court noted that the plaintiff testified that her asthma did not prevent her from participating in exercise or other functions, although it may limit her exertions. This was insufficient to constitute a substantial limitation of a major life activity. The court rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the asthma compromised her immune system because this was not included in her original complaint. The dissenting judge cited the 2008 ADA amendments as grounds for concluding that episodic conditions or those controlled by medication were protected disabilities.
Based on this decision, the plaintiff may have been able to avoid summary judgment by a more detailed pleading of her medical condition. The 2008 ADA amendments protect conditions that impact a bodily system, even if they do not impair major life activities. For employers, this case demonstrates the importance of carefully assessing the employee’s alleged medical condition before responding to accommodation requests or claims of disability discrimination.
[View source.]
