|
April/May
2005
 Severe
Itching Caused by Work Environment Not Sufficient to Establish Disability
Under the ADA
In Haynes v.
Williams (2004), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia held that where an employee is substantially limited in a major
life activity caused by environmental factors in the workplace, and
where the substantial limitations can be eliminated by simply changing
jobs or work sites, the individual can not establish a claim of disability
within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Charles Haynes had
been a budget analyst for the District of Columbia (District) for twelve
years when he suddenly developed a severe medical condition (idiopathic
pruritus). Haynes described this condition as a feeling of insects crawling
on his skin, causing severe irritation and itching. The severe itching
continued beyond work hours and through the night, impairing his ability
to sleep more than four hours. As a result of his trouble sleeping,
he often arrived at work late, often not until the afternoon. Because
the condition would recur only after Haynes arrived at work, Haynes
and several other coworkers filed a formal complaint with the District
of Columbia’s Office of Occupational Safety and Health. An allergist
treating Haynes diagnosed him as “a most allergic individual”
whose symptoms were exacerbated by the work environment.
In response to the
complaint, the District sprayed the offices for bugs and other flying
insects. After Haynes’ complaints continued, the District hired
specialists to test limited aspects of its air quality. No significant
problems were detected. Shortly thereafter, Haynes was terminated for
excessive absenteeism and tardiness. Haynes subsequently sued the District,
alleging violations of the ADA, specifically claiming that the District
failed to reasonably accommodate his disability and discharged him based
on his protected disability.
The District filed
for summary judgment on the basis that Haynes failed to show he was
disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The district court granted the
motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals agreed and affirmed
the lower court’s judgment.
For Haynes to prevail
in his claim of disability discrimination, he had to demonstrate that
(1) he suffers from an impairment, (2) the impairment limits an activity
that constitutes a major life activity under the ADA, and (3) the limitation
is substantial. The court of appeals held that although Haynes suffered
from a physical impairment and that the impairment did limit the major
life activity of sleeping, Haynes failed to establish that his sleeping
limitation was substantial. The court held that Haynes had failed to
offer evidence that any location other than his office triggered his
itching to such an extent that it seriously limited his ability to sleep.
In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment, the
court of appeals relied on the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in
Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams (to be substantially
limiting, an impairment’s impact must be permanent or long-term)
and Sutton v. United Airlines (the determination of whether
an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures
that mitigate the individual’s impairment).
The court of appeals
therefore reasoned that because Haynes’ condition became limiting
only when he worked in a single building, his substantial limitations
in sleeping could be mitigated by a change of jobs or work sites. As
a result, Haynes was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
Employer
Notes: Employers must be extremely cautious in relying on the
holding in this case, as state discrimination laws often provide a much
broader definition of disability than the ADA. As a result, in cases
where employers allege that a disability is the result of the work environment,
the employer must explore whether reasonable accommodations exist. In
the instant case, an exploration of working at home or transferring
work sites may have been appropriate. In all such cases, legal counsel
should be consulted to determine legal requirements.
Submitted by Beth
Hinsdale, Principal, Grotta, Glassman & Hoffman P.A. You can contact
Ms. Hinsdale at hinsdaleb@gghlaw.com.
Reprinted
from Council’s Public Sector Personnel Law Update newsletter.
To subscribe or order a free trial subscription, click
here.
|
