Part 11- Regulation of Business, Chapter 51: Employment Law, Note 7

Summary: Fleck v. WILMAC Corp. and ADA Legal Principles Case Summary: Fleck v. WILMAC Corp. (2011) 1. Background: o Lindsay Fleck, a physical therapist at Attleboro Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, had a chronic ankle injury requiring surgery in late 2008. o Following surgery, Fleck requested accommodations to return to work, including a reduced schedule or frequent breaks during her shifts. o Attleboro denied these requests and terminated her employment when she could not return to full-time work without accommodations. o Fleck sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming discriminatory discharge and failure to accommodate her disability. 2. Legal Claims: o Fleck argued she was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA. o She alleged that her employer failed to engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations and instead terminated her employment unlawfully. 3. Defendants' Arguments: o Attleboro contended that Fleck was not disabled as defined by the ADA. o It further argued she was not a qualified individual because she could not perform the essential functions of her job without accommodations. Key Legal Issues and Court Analysis 1. Was Fleck Disabled Under the ADA? o ADA Definition of Disability: A disability is:  (1) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,  (2) A record of such an impairment, or  (3) Being regarded as having such an impairment. o Court's Findings:  Fleck’s chronic ankle injury limited major life activities such as walking and standing. Post-surgery, she required a walking cast and could only stand or walk for short periods, suggesting a substantial limitation.  Under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which broadened the definition of disability, the court determined Fleck plausibly alleged a qualifying disability. 2. Was Fleck a Qualified Individual? o Standard: A qualified individual can perform the essential functions of their job with or without reasonable accommodation. o Court's Findings:  Fleck proposed accommodations, including a part-time schedule or hourly breaks, that could enable her to perform her job.  Attleboro refused to engage in an interactive process to assess these accommodations.  The court held that whether Fleck’s proposed accommodations were reasonable required further factual analysis, making dismissal inappropriate. 3. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process: o The ADA requires employers to engage in an interactive process with employees to identify reasonable accommodations. o Court's Findings:  Fleck provided medical documentation supporting her accommodation requests.  Attleboro’s refusal to consider part-time work, breaks, or extended leave suggested a failure to meet its legal obligation to explore accommodations. 4. “Regarded As” Disabled: o The ADAAA expanded the "regarded as" definition to include cases where an employer discriminates based on perceived physical or mental impairments, regardless of actual limitations. o Court's Findings:  Fleck’s employer was aware of her surgery and observed her using a visible medical device.  The evidence supported an inference that Attleboro regarded her as disabled when it terminated her employment.  Legal Takeaways 1. Broadened Definition of Disability under the ADAAA: o The ADAAA emphasizes inclusive coverage, defining disabilities broadly to include temporary or episodic impairments if they substantially limit major life activities. 2. Employer Duties Under the ADA: o Employers must engage in a good-faith, interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations. o Failure to explore accommodations, even if ultimately infeasible, can constitute a violation of the ADA. 3. Accommodations: o Reasonable accommodations may include modified schedules, additional breaks, or temporary leave. o Employers can only reject accommodations if they impose an undue hardship, determined by factors like cost and business impact. 4. “Regarded As” Claims: o Employers can face liability for treating employees as if they have a disability, even if the employee does not meet the statutory definition of being substantially limited in a major life activity. Implications for Employers and Employees 1. For Employers: o Train supervisors on ADA compliance, including the obligation to engage in the interactive process. o Assess accommodation requests carefully and document the decisionmaking process to demonstrate efforts to comply. o Be cautious of actions that could be perceived as discriminatory, particularly following medical leaves or requests for accommodations. 2. For Employees: o Provide employers with timely and clear medical documentation supporting accommodation requests. o Propose accommodations that allow the performance of essential job functions. o Seek legal remedies if employers fail to engage in the interactive process or deny reasonable accommodations without justification.