One reads a lot about how a conservative judiciary has supposedly pulled the teeth of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Particularly noteworthy is a series of decisions in which the Supreme Court, faced with employment claims in which safety might be at risk (from commercial pilots with poor vision, for example), ruled against the employee’s claim and widened the effective range of employer discretion.
No doubt there is some truth to the idea that the high court’s employment decisions have curbed the ADA’s expansionary momentum. But then there are the cases like that of Dark v. Curry County, decided by the Ninth Circuit this summer. Robert Dark, an epileptic from youth, operated heavy construction equipment for the road department of an Oregon county. One morning he experienced an “aura”, a sensation which often presages a coming seizure, but did not inform anyone at the job about it when he reported for work. Later that day, he did in fact experience a seizure. An accident was avoided because a co-worker managed to seize control of the machine Dark was operating before it could do any damage.
The county terminated Dark, with emphatic language about how his medical condition prevented him from safely accomplishing his duties. A lower court agreed with the county, but a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reinstated his suit. Its key points: the county did not adequately give consideration to reassigning Dark to light-duty positions, in particular those that it might have anticipated would “become available within a reasonable period” following his removal from the machinery job, even though the jobs were not in fact open at the time. And although the county placed considerable weight during the dispute on Dark’s misconduct in not informing his supervisors or co-workers about his indications of a possible impending seizure, it did not cite that reason at the time in dismissing Dark, instead (and more diplomatically) reciting the safety concerns of a prospective nature.
The case (available at FindLaw here in PDF format) sparked considerable discussion on the web, including Phillip J. Griego (to whom the above discussion is indebted), HRHero/M. Lee Smith, and Proskauer Rose. Robert Loblaw at Appellate Decisions writes (Jul. 6):
The ADA often places employers in a difficult position, since they have knowledge of the dangers of employing a particular individual but cannot always take steps to address those dangers. Indeed, this case is similar to last year’s Pacific Bell case, which involved a home repair technician who had spent time in a mental hospital after being found not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity (my coverage here). As in that case, Curry County would probably be found liable in tort if Dark injured somebody while on the job, due to its knowledge of his condition. Indeed, Curry County is even more likely to be on the hook if Dark has another seizure that results in injury, since he already had one near-miss on the job. But as far as the ADA is concerned, Curry County’s potential tort liability is simply not relevant.
And before assuming that this is just one of those wacky Ninth Circuit cases, note (as does Ross Runkel) that the author of the opinion is the highly regarded conservative jurist Diarmuid O’Scannlain. Maybe it just is an extreme law, with no judicial activism needed to get extreme results out of it.
Comments are closed.