While the ADA Amendments Act made it easier for employees to show that they have a disability, it did not eliminate the requirement, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in Neely v. PSEG Texas, No. 12-51074 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2013).
Facts of the Case
Jeffrey Neely worked as a control-room operator at PSEG Texas. After several verbal altercations with supervisors, he was fired. Later, he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder without psychosis. He sued his employer, alleging discrimination, retaliation and failure to provide an accommodation, all in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas left it to a jury to decide whether he was a qualified individual with a disability — a prerequisite to succeeding on an ADA claim. The jury decided that he was not.
Neely appealed to the 5th Circuit, arguing that the court should have never asked the jury to decide that question because the use of the words “with a disability” was contrary to the Amendments Act.
The intent of the Amendments Act was to expand ADA’s coverage by simplifying the analysis of “disability,” he argued. It should not have been considered at all; instead, the focus should have been on his discrimination claims, he argued.
The court acknowledged that in amending the law, Congress made clear that the “primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability.” The “question of whether an individual meets the definition of disability under this part should not demand extensive analysis.”
Although those instructions downplay the definition of “disability,” Congress in no way eliminated that term, nor the need to prove eligibility, from ADA, the court said. To show discrimination, an employee still is responsible for proving that he has a disability, that he is qualified for the job and that his employer took an adverse action against him because of his disability.
“In other words, although the ADAAA makes it easier to prove a disability; it does not absolve a party from proving one,” the court said, affirming the lower court’s ruling.
For more information on disability discrimination, visit Thompson’s HR Compliance Expert