In my last post, I discussed the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., which upheld the current Sixth Circuit standard that a plaintiff must show that his or her disability was the “sole reason” for the adverse employment action; sometimes referred to as the “solely” standard. Of the ten circuits to consider the issue, eight apply a “motivating factor” (or “substantial cause”) test, under which a plaintiff must only show that a disability was a motivating factor of the adverse employment action.
In response to my post, I received a message from Brian D. Hall, who edits the excellent Employer Law Report asking if I agree that the Lewis decision reduces the risk of Cat’s Paw liability in ADA cases in the Sixth Circuit. I recently blogged on the Supreme Court’s Cat’s Paw case. Having considered the two cases together, I believe that at least for now, the Sixth Circuit’s use of the “solely” standard lessens the risk of Cat’s Paw liability. I would apply the same reasoning to the Tenth Circuit, which also uses the “solely” standard.
In the Supreme Court’s Cat’s Paw case, Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the Court limited its holding to USERRA but noted that USERRA’s “motivating factor” causation standard is “very similar to Title VII.” Thus, it is reasonable to expect this decision to be applied to other statutes that employ a “motivating factor” causation standard, e.g. Title VII and in most circuits, the ADA. The ADEA requires “but for” causation so age discrimination claims should be outside the Staub decision. Extending that argument, ADA claims in the Sixth and Tenth Circuits should also be outside the Staub decision since they require that a disability be the “sole reason” for adverse employment action.
It is worth noting that in his Staub opinion, Justice Scalia referenced only Title VII, not the ADA. This may well have been because of the split in the Circuits regarding the causation standard. The ADA itself bars employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Title VII prohibits employment discrimination “because of … race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” and states that such discrimination is established when one of those factors “was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000e–2(a), (m). Thus, the ADA is not as clear as Title VII as to the critical “motivating factor” language. The issue of what is meant by “because of” in the ADA is open for some debate as demonstrated by incongruous views of the Sixth and Tenth Circuits and most of the other circuits on the subject.
The origin of the Sixth Circuit’s view on this subject is a footnote from the 1995 case of Maddox v. Univ. of Tennessee, which reads in its entirety:
The ADA parallels the protection of the Rehabilitation Act, prohibiting employers from discriminating "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to ... discharge of employees." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12112(a). The district court held that its reasoning with respect to the Rehabilitation Act claim applied with equal force to the ADA claim. We agree and will therefore review the respective claims accordingly.
Under the Rehabilitation Act, "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Thus, the Sixth Circuit position is based on a premise that the analysis of claims under the ADA parallels those brought under the Rehabilitation Act. Obviously, other circuits disagree with this approach and take the position that “because of” is satisfied when a disability is merely a “motivating factor.”
For now, there is a sound argument that Cat’s Paw liability is not available in ADA cases in the Sixth and Tenth Circuits because the theory is premised upon mere influence upon the decision maker, who has non-discriminatory reasons for his or her actions. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible for the employee’s disability to be the “sole reason” for the adverse action. One final thought on this topic – it seems to me that the Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp. case with it’s straightforward facts and single legal issue might make an excellent case for the Supreme Court to consider if it wishes to address the causation standard for the ADA.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Employment Law
- Discrimination
- Coronavirus
- FLSA
- Overtime Pay
- Labor Law
- Non-Compete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Federal Trade Commission
- Privacy
- Reasonable Accommodation
- NLRB
- Workplace Accommodations
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Violence
- Religion Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- IRS
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- National Labor Relations Act
- Race Discrimination
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- Whistleblower
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- United States Supreme Court
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Unions
- Title VII
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- NLRA
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Securities Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Overturns Expansion of Overtime Requirements
- U.S. Supreme Court to Review Title VII Reverse Discrimination Case
- NLRB General Counsel Expands Focus on Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-Or-Pay Agreements
- FTC's Non-Compete Rule Struck Down
- District Court Finds in Favor of FTC, Declines to Issue Injunction
- DOL Increases Compensation Threshold for Exemption Eligibility
- Federal Trade Commission Announces New Rule Invalidating Non-Compete Agreements
- EEOC Announces Final Rule Providing Guidelines under the PWFA
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Immediate Termination
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update February 2024