The Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp. on March 17, 2011 that is based on an interesting anomaly in the Sixth Circuit’s treatment of ADA claims. Ms. Lewis was a registered nurse who began working at the Humboldt Manor Nursing Home in July 2004. Sometime in September 2005, she developed a medical condition that “among other things, affected her lower extremities.” As a result of the condition, Ms. Lewis sometimes used a wheelchair. Humboldt Manor terminated Ms. Lewis’ employment in March 2006 because of an “outburst” that she had at the nurses station. Three co-workers testified that she yelled, criticized supervisors and used profanity. Ms. Lewis and another employee testified that she was upset but did not act inappropriately. Ms. Lewis alleged that the true reason for her termination was her use of a wheelchair and that Humboldt Manor exaggerated the severity of her behavior to use it as a pretext for disability discrimination.
Ms. Lewis filed a claim under the ADA and in her proposed jury instructions stated that the jury must determine whether her perceived disability was a “motivating factor” in the termination decision. The District Court instructed the jury that Ms. Lewis could only recover if her disability was the “sole reason” for the decision to terminate. The jury concluded that Ms. Lewis was a qualified individual under the ADA and that Humboldt Manor regarded her as disabled. However, the jury determined that her disability was not the sole reason for her termination and the District Court entered judgment in favor of Humboldt Manor. Ms. Lewis appealed on the single issue of whether the Court had erred in its “sole reason” instruction.
The Sixth Circuit noted that the ADA prohibits discrimination “on the basis of” disability. Of the ten circuits to consider the causation 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. However, the current law in the Sixth Circuit is that a plaintiff must show that his or her disability was the “sole reason” for the adverse employment action; this is sometimes referred to as the “solely” standard. The Court noted that a panel of the Sixth Circuit may not overrule another panel unless an inconsistent decision of the United States Supreme Court requires it or the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc overrules the prior decision. At present, no Supreme Court cases are inconsistent with the Sixth Circuit’s “sole reason” standard. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of Humboldt Manor.
I suspect that Ms. Lewis will seek en banc review of the decision but for now the “sole reason” standard of causation applies in the Sixth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit is the only other circuit that currently applies the “solely” standard.
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
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- 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