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.
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing management in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Coronavirus
- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- NLRB
- Discrimination
- Department of Labor
- IRS
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- NLRA
- Retirement
- Arbitration
- Employer Policies
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Accommodation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- EEOC
- 401(k)
- Wage & Hour
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Title VII
- Workplace Accommodations
- ADAAA
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Rules
- Unions
- Transgender Issues
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Securities Law
- Technology
- Privacy
- FMLA
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Disability
- Health Savings Account
- Workplace Violence
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Religion Discrimination
- Representative Election Regulations
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Department of Justice
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Healthcare Reform
- Telecommuting
- Electronically Stored Information
- Affirmative Action
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Compensable Time
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- American Medical Association
- 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
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Welcome 2021 - 5 Things for Employers to Consider
- Congressional Proposal Extends Tax Credits to Companies Providing Paid Leave, but Allows Requirement to Expire
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: EEOC Issues New Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccinations
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Non-Compete Agreements - Five Mistakes by Three Parties
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment At-Will – Myth or Reality?
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: COVID-19 Immunity Laws
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Reductions in Force - Key Factors to Consider
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast
- 5 Things Employers Should Know About Military Leave
- Ohio Passes COVID Immunity Law - Employers Beware