« Fire that one and get "somebody hot" | Main | Arbitration Law Memo »
Substantial limitation on walking
August 13, 2005 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
The EEOC beat back the argument that the Toyota case heightened the standard for determining whether an individual is "disabled" under the ADA.
Employee Keane claimed she had a substantial limitation of her major life activity of walking. After Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky v. Williams, 534 US 184 (2002), the question was whether the Supreme Court had raised the standard of proof for plaintiffs.
Here were the choices:
- She must prove an impairment that "prevents or severely restricts" walking.
- She must prove a "substantial limitation compared to the walking most people do daily."
Keane was a department store sales associate who suffered leg numbness brought on by neuropathy (nerve damage). The EEOC's evidence was that Keane was unable to walk the equivalent of one city block without her right leg and feet becoming numb, and when leaving the store she would hold onto the wall for support.
In EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co (7th Cir 08/10/2005) the 7th Circuit held:
- When the Supreme Court used the phrase "prevents or severely restricts," it was referring only to the major life activity of "performing manual tasks." Keane's case involves the major life activity of "walking," and she need not meet a "severely restricts" standard. A reasonable jury could find that Keane's difficulty was "a substantial limitation compared to the walking most people do daily."
- A reasonable jury could conclude that the employer's accommodations were not reasonable. Keane was allowed to park in the disabled zone, but that did not reduce the distance she had to walk. She was allowed to eat lunch in a stockroom, and allowed to use another stockroom as a shortcut. However, these accommodations were either rescinded or Keane faced a reprimand when she tried to use them.
- A reasonable jury could find that the employer was aware of Keane's disability. She gave the employer notes from two doctors, and told three levels of supervisors that she wanted to use a shortcut. That obligated the employer to engage in an interactive process. Although Keane quit her job, a reasonable jury could find that the employer caused the interactive process to break down. An employer cannot reject a request for one accommodation without offering another suggestion or offering to continue discussions.
My view: Correct on all three points.
|
|
« Fire that one and get "somebody hot" | Main | Arbitration Law Memo »
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
