HRD > Policy Development > Topical ADA Archive >

Topical ADA Archive

Non-Discriminatory Discharge

• Adamcyzk v. Chief, Baltimore Cty. Police, (DC Md), 8 AD Cases 515, 1/29/1997
  
  Summary: County police department lawfully demoted sergeant for misconduct following his revolting behavior at shift party, despite contention that he was demoted because of his alcoholism, where he engaged in egregious misconduct unbecoming of police officer, and whether or not he was intoxicated, what he did and said adversely affected morale of other police officers, particularly female officers in attendance.
  
  
• Brohm v. JH Properties Inc., (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 511, 7/24/1998
  
  Summary: Hospital was entitled to discharge anesthesiologist who was sleeping on job and who subsequently was diagnosed with sleep apnea, despite contention that he was discharged for conduct causally related to his disability, where sleeping while administering anesthetics severely diminished his ability to perform his duties as anesthesiologist.
  
  
• Crandall v. Paralyzed Veterans, (CA DC), 8 AD Cases 348, 6/23/1998
  
  Summary: Employer that terminated librarian for rudeness was not on notice of his alleged underlying disability of bipolar disorder, despite contention that his rude behavior itself was so extreme as to afford notice, where layman cannot reasonably be expected to infer psychiatric disorder merely from rude behavior, given prevalence of rudeness without psychiatric disorder.
  
  
• Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods, (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 308, 5/12/1998
  
  Summary: Former employee who was discharged because she was unable to return to work at end of one-year leave of absence cannot demonstrate pretext by her arguments that employer's leave-of-absence policy identified in discharge letter was posted on bulletin board while another leave policy was published in employee manual, that she was not warned that she was about to be terminated, that her work record was good and there was no other reason to terminate her, and that extension of leave policy for three weeks would have cost employer nothing, since none of these factors tends to show that employer's application of its leave of absence policy was untrue, did not actually motivate discharge, or was insufficient to motivate discharge.
  
  
• Hamilton v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., (CA 5), 8 AD Cases 1219, 3/23/1998
  
  Summary: Discharge of managerial employee who verbally abused physically smaller female employee and slapped her hand down was due to his violation of employer's policy against workplace violence and did not violate ADA, despite contention that his violent outburst was caused by his post traumatic stress disorder syndrome. ADA does not insulate emotional or violent outbursts blamed on impairment; cause of discharge was his failure to recognize acceptable limits of behavior in workplace environment.
  
  
• Jasmantas v. Subaru-Isuzu, (CA 7), 7 AD Cases 1859, 3/26/1998
  
  Summary: Discharged employee with repetitive-stress disability did not offer sufficient evidence of discrimination. Photographs taken by private investigators convinced managers that she was malingerer and was dishonest about her injuries. Employee offered no evidence undercutting good faith of this belief or otherwise tending to show pretext. Fact that two officials may have made disparaging remarks about disabled employees on several occasions is too remote from circumstances of her termination to help her.
  
  
• Kariotis v. Navistar Intl., (CA 7), 7 AD Cases 1313, 12/9/1997
  
  Summary: Former executive assistant who had knee replacement surgery cannot make out ADA claim against employer that discharged her for disability fraud. Video tape secretly taken by employer's investigators showed employee walking, driving, sitting, bending, and pushing grocery cart. Although employer did not speak with her physician or have her examined by its doctor, it reasonably concluded that she was collecting disability benefits even though she could perform her job. Nothing in the record suggests that the employer came to this conclusion because the employee had severe physical problems that were costing it money. Discharge decision may be flawed, but it was not based on illegal discrimination.
  
  
• Maddox v. Univ. of Tennessee, (CA 6), 4 AD Cases 1253, 8/21/1995
  
  Summary: Court distinguished between discharge for misconduct and discharge because of disability of alcoholism in upholding discharge of assistant university football coach for having been arrested for drunk driving, despite the contention that in essence he was discharged because of disability because alcoholism caused incident that led to discharge. A contrary ruling would force employer to accommodate all behavior of alcoholic that could in any way be related to alcoholic's use of intoxicating beverages, including behavior that would be intolerable if engaged in by sober employee or by intoxicated but non-alcoholic employee. For example, it strains logic to conclude that an individual who becomes intoxicated and sexually assaults a co-worker could be protected under the ADA merely because he has been diagnosed as an alcoholic and claims that his conduct was caused by his disability.
  
  
• Matthews v. Commonwealth Edison, (CA 7), 7 AD Cases 1651, 11/17/1997
  
  Summary: Employer's discharge in reduction in force (RIF) of employee who had suffered heart attack did not violate ADA, even though discharge was consequence of his disability, where it was not due to his disability. Employer selected employees for RIF on basis of recent performance, and heart attack caused him to miss many months and resulted in lower annual performance rating.
  
  
• Matthews v. Trilogy Communications, (CA 8), 8 AD Cases 299, 5/14/1998
  
  Summary: Termination of insulin-dependent diabetic traveling sales representative after he became uninsurable because of his bad driving record does not establish disability-based discrimination, since at time of termination he no longer possessed same objective professional qualifications as when he was hired. When hired, he had valid driver's license and was insurable driver under employer's insurance policy, and having valid driver's license and being insurable are not only mere company rules but rather are objective qualifications for job because sales personnel must be able to drive to clients' locations.
  
  
• Newberry v. East Texas State Univ, (CA 5), 8 AD Cases 1595, 11/18/1998
  
  Summary: If disabled employee engages in conduct that is legitimate basis for discharge, employer may discharge him on basis of conduct itself without violating ADA, even though it believes that his conduct is symptomatic of his disability, as long as collateral assessment of disability plays no role in discharge decision.
  
  
• Pouncy v. Vulcan Materials Co., (DC NAla), 7 AD Cases 1621, 2/16/1996
  
  Summary: Employer's reasons of poor performance and bad attitude for terminating systems analyst, who claimed that she was perceived by employer to be suffering from mental illness, were not pretextual, where her performance problems and attitude problems were well documented, and employer went out of its way to attempt to keep her on job even after her problems persisted for months.
  
  
• Smith v. Chrysler Corp., (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 1084, 9/15/1998
  
  Summary: In order for an employer's proffered non-discriminatory basis for its employment action to be considered honestly held, the employer must be able to establish its reasonable reliance on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made. If the employer is unable to produce such evidence to support its employment action, then the "honest belief'' rule does not apply. In this case, the court held that the employer reasonably relied on the particularized facts at hand when it determined that the employee had falsely stated on his Driver's License Examination form that he was not narcoleptic. Chrysler had before it letters from the employee's treating physician stating that he was being treated for narcolepsy, the medical opinion expressed by the employee's doctor during his telephone conversation with the employer's doctor that the employee suffered from narcolepsy, and the medical notes of the employer's doctor indicating that the employee himself admitted to suffering from narcolepsy since 1989.
  
  
• Thompson v. City of Watford City, (ND SupCt), 8 AD Cases, 9/8/1997
  
  Summary: Mentally disabled garbage collector's job-related conduct gave city non-discriminatory reasons for discharging him, since he had not been performing satisfactorily; he worked more slowly, walked off job without permission, tried to hit co-worker, and went fishing when directed to return to shop to "cool off,'' and he rejected meeting with supervisor and mayor about keeping his job despite these job failings.
  
  
• Wallin v. Minnesota Dept. Of Corrections, (CA 8), 8 AD Cases 1012, 8/17/1998
  
  Summary: Discharged correctional officer was not discriminated against by reason of his disability, despite contention that similarly situated employees were disciplined differently, where other employees cited by him were not similarly situated to him because their misconduct was not as egregious as his in that he, unlike them, created substantial public danger by leaving entire cell block unbolted, he was involved in three serious, unrelated incidents in short one-month period while demonstrating pattern of violent behavior, and he, unlike other employees cited, was evasive during investigation, would not admit to wrongdoing, and could not assure supervisors that he would not repeat his misdeeds.