Eaton Peabody
News >> Law Updates & Archives >>
<< Back to News
Maine Court finds that Employees who are regarded as disabled have right to reasonable accommodation under the ADA
This past November, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine held that the right to reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and, by analogy, the MHRA, extends to employees who are regarded as disabled as well as those who are actually disabled. See Jewell v. Reids Confectionary Company, No. 01-119-B-S (D. Me. 2001) at http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/singal/2001/gzs_11212001_1-01cv119_jewell_v_reids.pdf
The Court stated two reasons for is holding. First, the Court relied on the First Circuit decision of Katz v. City Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1996), which had ruled, without engaging in substantive analysis of the issue, that an employee may maintain a cause of action for failure to reasonably accommodate a perceived disability.
Second, although it recognized that other circuits had reached the opposite conclusion, the Court stated that:
[T]he Court cannot agree with Weber that the disparity in treatment between non-disabled employees whom an employer perceives as disabled, and those whom it does not perceive as disabled, is of sufficient concern to foreclose Plaintiffs claim.
The court in Weber held that it would be a bizarre result to force employers to accommodate employees who are not actually disabled. This holding has both practical and intuitiveappeal. However, finding such a result not to be bizarre at all, the Court in Jewellnoted that: Indeed, the purpose of the ADA was, in part, to punish employers for making just this sort of Õstereotypic [assumption] not truly indicative of the individual ability of their employees. Id. citing 42 U.S.C.S. ´Ï 12101(7).
Whatever the merit of this rationale, if it does nothing else, the Courts decision clarifies that employees who are merely regarded as disabled are nonetheless entitled to reasonable accommodation. What exactly would constitute an accommodation, reasonable or otherwise, for an employee who is not really disabled is anyones guess.
Rev'd 3.5.'02
Please contact Matthew S. Raynes, mraynes@eatonpeabody.com, for further information.
This paper is provided as general information, and is not a substitute for legal or other professional advice.
This past November, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine held that the right to reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and, by analogy, the MHRA, extends to employees who are regarded as disabled as well as those who are actually disabled. See Jewell v. Reids Confectionary Company, No. 01-119-B-S (D. Me. 2001) at http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/singal/2001/gzs_11212001_1-01cv119_jewell_v_reids.pdf
The Court stated two reasons for is holding. First, the Court relied on the First Circuit decision of Katz v. City Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1996), which had ruled, without engaging in substantive analysis of the issue, that an employee may maintain a cause of action for failure to reasonably accommodate a perceived disability.
Second, although it recognized that other circuits had reached the opposite conclusion, the Court stated that:
[T]he Court cannot agree with Weber that the disparity in treatment between non-disabled employees whom an employer perceives as disabled, and those whom it does not perceive as disabled, is of sufficient concern to foreclose Plaintiffs claim.
The court in Weber held that it would be a bizarre result to force employers to accommodate employees who are not actually disabled. This holding has both practical and intuitiveappeal. However, finding such a result not to be bizarre at all, the Court in Jewellnoted that: Indeed, the purpose of the ADA was, in part, to punish employers for making just this sort of Õstereotypic [assumption] not truly indicative of the individual ability of their employees. Id. citing 42 U.S.C.S. ´Ï 12101(7).
Whatever the merit of this rationale, if it does nothing else, the Courts decision clarifies that employees who are merely regarded as disabled are nonetheless entitled to reasonable accommodation. What exactly would constitute an accommodation, reasonable or otherwise, for an employee who is not really disabled is anyones guess.
Rev'd 3.5.'02
Please contact Matthew S. Raynes, mraynes@eatonpeabody.com, for further information.
This paper is provided as general information, and is not a substitute for legal or other professional advice.
<< Back to News