Temporary Impairment Can Constitute Disability under ADAAA: Fourth Circuit | Practical Law

Temporary Impairment Can Constitute Disability under ADAAA: Fourth Circuit | Practical Law

In Summers v. Altarum Institute, Corp., the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applied the expanded definition of "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) and held that a temporary impairment, if sufficiently severe, may qualify as a disability.

Temporary Impairment Can Constitute Disability under ADAAA: Fourth Circuit

Practical Law Legal Update 4-555-4465 (Approx. 4 pages)

Temporary Impairment Can Constitute Disability under ADAAA: Fourth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 24 Jan 2014 • USA (National/Federal)
In Summers v. Altarum Institute, Corp., the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applied the expanded definition of "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) and held that a temporary impairment, if sufficiently severe, may qualify as a disability.
On January 23, 2014, in Summers v. Altarum Institute, Corp., the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applied the ADA’s amended definition of "disability" and held that an employee's temporary impairment, if sufficiently severe, may qualify as a disability. (No. 13-1645 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2014).)

Background

The plaintiff was traveling to a client's work site when he fell while exiting a commuter train, severely injuring his legs and knees. Doctors estimated that his injuries would require surgery and prevent him from walking normally for at least seven months. The plaintiff contacted his employer about working from home, but after granting him short-term disability benefits his employer terminated him.
The plaintiff filed two lawsuits in district court claiming wrongful discharge and failure to accommodate his disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed the first suit without prejudice pursuant to the defendant's motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the second with prejudice. The district court found that the plaintiff's:
  • Wrongful discharge claim failed because he did not allege that he was disabled since:
    • by definition, a temporary condition lasting even up to a year does not qualify as a disability under the ADA; and
    • he could have worked in a wheelchair and therefore was able to work with accommodations.
  • Accommodation claim failed, because the plaintiff's proposal to work temporarily from home was unreasonable in that it eliminated a significant function of his job. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not meet his burden of requesting a reasonable accommodation.
The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his wrongful discharge claim only.

Outcome

Based on its application of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim. The appellate court held that the district court erred in finding that the plaintiff was not disabled because, although his impairment was temporary, his injuries were sufficiently severe to render him substantially limited in walking, a major life activity.
Holding that a temporary impairment is not categorically excluded from qualifying as a disability under the ADA, the Fourth Circuit:
  • Instructed that the proper way to apply the ADA analysis is for courts to:
    • first, establish whether the plaintiff suffers from a substantially limiting impairment; and
    • second, ask whether the plaintiff is capable of working with or without an accommodation.
  • Granted deference to the EEOC's definition of "disability" which includes temporary impairments. Applying the Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. analysis, the court held that:
    • at most, the ADA is ambiguous with respect to temporary impairments; and
    • the EEOC's interpretation is reasonable because it is in line with Congress's goal to expand coverage of the ADA protections by enacting the amendments (467 U.S. 837 (1984)).
  • Found that the plaintiff qualifies as disabled under the broadened definition under the ADAAA, noting that the:
    • duration of an impairment is only part of the inquiry;
    • EEOC regulations do not distinguish between temporary impairments caused by injuries and those caused by permanent conditions; and
    • plaintiff's alleged injury that prevented him from walking for at least seven months was severe enough to substantially limit major life activities.

Practical Implications

The Fourth Circuit's application of the broadened definition of "disability" under the ADAAA might indicate how other circuits will interpret the ADAAA. Employers should be aware that the expanded coverage under the amended regulations triggers protection for many more employees as a result, and requires employers to engage in an interactive process, among other ADA obligations.