|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Feature Contents
1. Alcoholism and the ADA
Employers should note that in order for a protected disability to exist, the plaintiff must address the specific condition which affords protection under the ADA and is the basis for the employer’s alleged violation of that law.
Similar Documents
Related Topics
ADA 'Association' Claim
Even if there is a legitimate business reason for terminating an employee, disparate treatment of similarly situated employees by a company suggests a reasonable inference of pretext. Employers are advised that when considering taking action against workplace misconduct, they should take action that is consistent and is in line with company policy.
By James E. Hall, Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis
Recommend 0
 illiam and Debra Trujillo worked for PacifiCorp in Sweetwater County,
Wyoming. During their employment, their terminally ill son, Charlie,
participated in PacifiCorp’s health insurance plan, in which benefits were paid
directly by the company.
On June 10, 2003, 11 days after Charlie began expensive
treatments, PacifiCorp began an investigation of suspected theft by the
Trujillos for false recording of hours worked. On June 19, PacifiCorp fired
William Trujillo, a 25-year employee of the company, for "time theft," and later
fired Debra Trujillo for falsification of her work hours.
The Trujillos filed suit under the Americans With
Disabilities Act in U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Their
lawsuit alleged a violation of the ADA’s "association" provisions, which
prohibit employers from discriminating against an employee because of the
employee’s relationship or association with an individual with a known
disability.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of PacifiCorp,
holding that the Trujillos failed to raise a "reasonable inference" that
Charlie’s disability was a determining factor in the decision to fire. The
Trujillos appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver
reversed, holding that the Trujillos raised a reasonable inference of
PacifiCorp’s discriminatory motive to establish a prima facie case of
association discrimination. The time proximity between Charlie’s expensive
treatment and PacifiCorp’s investigation and termination of the Trujillos
supported an inference of discrimination. The Trujillos also presented evidence
that other employees accused of similar workplace misconduct were not fired.
Trujillo v. PacifiCorp., 10th Cir., No. 06-8074 (5/7/08).
Impact: Even if there is a legitimate business reason for
terminating an employee, disparate treatment of similarly situated employees by
a company suggests a reasonable inference of pretext. Employers are advised that
when considering taking action against workplace misconduct, they should take
action that is consistent and is in line with company policy.
Workforce Management, June 23, 2008, p. 8
-- Subscribe Now!
James E. Hall, Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis are partners with the law firm of
Barlow, Kobata and Denis, with offices in Los Angeles and Chicago. E-mail editors@workforce.com to comment.
Features Archive
|
Reproductions and distribution of the above article are strictly prohibited. To order reprints and/or request permission to use the article in full or partial format, please contact our Reprint Sales Manager at (732) 723-0569.
|
|
|
= Member Only
