Source: https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-journal/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnjournal01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2F85670400935aef54852582f0005a6f84
Timestamp: 2018-09-19 09:38:32
Document Index: 800072332

Matched Legal Cases: ['§12111', '§12112', '§760', '§12111', '§12112', '§12112', '§1630', '§1630', '§1630', '§1630', '§12112', '§1630', '§2612', '§2611', '§12112', '§760', '§760', '§760', '§41']

Florida Bar Journal – Adverse Employment Actions Based on Associational Disability Discrimination – The Florida Bar
by Alicia H. Koepke
1	42 U.S.C. §§12111-12117.
2	The Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh circuits have held that the “but-for” causation standard applies to ADA employment discrimination claims. See, e.g., Gentry v. East West Partners Club Mgmt. Co., Inc., 816 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2016) (noting that the Fourth Circuit was joining the Sixth and Seventh circuits in holding that Title VII’s “motivating factor” standard does not apply to ADA Title I claims).
3	42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(4).
4	Fla. Stat. §§760.01-760.11 & 509.092.
5	“Employer” is defined under the ADA as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such person,” but does not include the U.S., a corporation wholly owned by the government of the U.S., an Indian tribe, or a bona fide private membership club exempt from taxation. 42 U.S.C. §12111(5).
6	42 U.S.C. §12112.
7	42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(4).
8	29 C.F.R. §1630.8.
10	See, e.g., Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc., 313 F.3d 205, 215-16 (4th Cir. 2002) (doctor’s advocacy for disabled patients, which doctor alleged caused a hospital to deny her reappointment, was not sufficient to state a claim of associational disability discrimination because every hospital employee has a loose association with disabled patients, and generalized associations with disabled persons are not protected by the ADA); Oliveras-Sifre v. Puerto Rico Dept. of Health, 214 F.3d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 2000) (affirming dismissal of ADA claim because plaintiffs did not allege a specific association with a disabled individual, and their advocacy on behalf of HIV/AIDS patients did not implicate the association provision); O’Connell v. Isocor Corp., 56 F. Supp. 2d 649, 653 (E.D. Va. July 13, 1999) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s association claim because the plaintiff and her coworker, who mentioned her in his disability complaint against the employer, did not have the “close familial, social, business or physical relationship” contemplated by the ADA’s association provision).
11	Direct evidence establishes discriminatory intent without requiring any inference or presumption; it consists of blatant remarks whose intent could only be to discriminate. Wascura v. City of South Miami, 257 F.3d 1238, 1248 n.2 (11th Cir. 2001).
12	Hilburn v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc., 181 F.3d 1220, 1230-31 (11th Cir. 1999) (following Den Hartog test); Wascura, 257 F.3d at 1242 (citing to Hilburn, which followed Den Hartog); Stansberry v. Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp., 651 F.3d 482, 487 (6th Cir. 2011) (following Den Hartog test); Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2016) (following Den Hartog test); Cf. Larimer v. International Business Machines Corp., 370 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2004), cert. den., 543 U.S. 984 (2004) (stating that the Den Hartog test is “sound,” but requiring a plaintiff to present evidence that her case falls within the “expense,” “disability by association,” or “distraction” categories, which “Den Hartog does though not in precisely these words”).
13	Den Hartog, 129 F.3d at 1085.
14	Wascura, 257 F.3d at 1242-43.
15	Id.; Den Hartog, 129 F.3d at 1085; Trujillo v. PacifiCorp., 524 F.3d 1149, 1155 (10th Cir. 2008).
16	Trujillo, 524 F.3d at 1155.
17	Id. at 1158.
18	Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996, 1003 (8th Cir. 2012). For example, in Wascura, 257 F.3d at 1242-43, the 11th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer on plaintiff’s associational claim because the plaintiff never effectively challenged the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for the plaintiff’s termination and “adduced virtually no evidence of discrimination.” The three-and-a-half-month temporal proximity between the plaintiff notifying the employer of her son’s condition and the plaintiff’s firing, together with a “very weak inference” of discrimination from the employer’s statement that the plaintiff could use her son’s illness as “a face-saving excuse” for her termination, led the 11th Circuit to hold that the plaintiff “failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable jury that the employer’s proffered reasons for terminating [plaintiff] were [a] pretext for discrimination.” Wascura, 257 F.3d at 1247.
19	Id. (noting that the 11th Circuit has repeatedly held that employers can terminate employees for good or bad reasons without violating the law; the court’s only concern is with whether unlawful discriminatory animus motivated the adverse employment action); Pulczinski, 691 F.3d at 1003 (to withstand summary judgment, plaintiff must present sufficient evidence that the employer intentionally discriminated; if an employer’s belief in a reason for taking an adverse action turns out to be wrong, that does not prove discrimination).
20	Id. at 1091-2 (“[W]e hold that the ADA permits an employer to discipline or discharge a non-disabled employee whose disabled relative or associate, because of his or her disability, poses a direct threat to the employer’s workplace.”).
21	Larimer, 370 F.3d at 700. In Larimer, the Seventh Circuit determined that associational claims must fall within one of these categories “in which an employer has a motive to discriminate against a nondisabled employee who is merely associated with a disabled person.” Id. at 702. In Stansberry, 651 F.3d at 487, the Sixth Circuit disagreed, stating that the three categories articulated in Larimer “are not necessarily an exhaustive list.”
22	Id.; 29 C.F.R §1630, App. (stating that the association provision applies to benefits and privileges of employment, and citing as an example that “an employer that provides health insurance benefits to its employees for their dependents may not reduce the level of those benefits to an employee simply because that employee has a dependent with a disability. . .even if the provision of such benefits would result in increased health insurance costs for the employer.”).
23	Trujillo, 524 F.3d at 1160.
24	Id. at 1156.
25	Dewitt, 517 F.3d at 946-47, 950.
26	Larimer, 370 F.3d at 700; 29 C.F.R §1630, App. (The association provision “would prohibit an employer from discharging an employee because the employee does volunteer work with people who have AIDS, and the employer fears that the employee may contract the disease.”).
27	Saladin, 936 F. Supp at 1571.
28	Larimer, 370 F.3d at 700.
29	Id.; Stansberry, 651 F.3d at 489.
31	Per the EEOC: “(1) The term reasonable accommodation means: (i) Modifications or adjustments to a job application process that enable a qualified applicant with a disability to be considered for the position such qualified applicant desires; or (ii) modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position; or (iii) modifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities. (2) Reasonable accommodation may include but is not limited to: (i) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (ii) job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules; reassignment to a vacant position; acquisition or modifications of equipment or devices; appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials, or policies; the provision of qualified readers or interpreters; and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o).
32	42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(5)(A) (emphasis added).
33	See also 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. at 1630.8 (“[A]n employer need not provide the applicant or employee without a disability with a reasonable accommodation because that duty only applies to qualified applicants or employees with disabilities. Thus, for example, an employee would not be entitled to a modified work schedule as an accommodation to enable the employee to care for a spouse with a disability.”).
34	Erdman, 582 F.3d at 510.
35	See, e.g., Magnus v. St. Mark United Methodist Church, 688 F.3d 331, 339 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting that plaintiff claimed she was fired for her inability to work weekends and for arriving late, both due to her disabled daughter, and finding that plaintiff’s “true complaint is that the [employer], by mandating she work weekends, failed to accommodate her need to care for her disabled daughter. But unfortunately for [plaintiff], the ADA does not require employers to reasonably accommodate employees who do not themselves have a disability. As such, [plaintiff’s] claim fails as a matter of law.”); Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs., 31 F.3d 209, 214 (4th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary judgment in favor of employer on plaintiff’s associational disability discrimination claim because “an employer is not obligated to accommodate through scheduling modifications…[plaintiff’s] personal need to tend to her son’s disability.”); Graziadio, 817 F.3d at 415 (affirming summary judgment in favor of employer on plaintiff’s association claim because the evidence reflected that the employer terminated plaintiff because it felt she had taken too much leave from work to care for her sons and she was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation for her one son’s disability).
36	Hilburn, 181 F.3d at 1230-1231 (affirming summary judgment for employer because employee who sought transfer or promotion was not qualified for the positions sought due to her poor attendance record caused by her illnesses and those of her family members); Magnus, 688 F.3d at 336 (“[A]n employee who cannot meet the attendance requirements of her job is not protected” by the association provision.); Tyndall, 31 F.3d at 214.
37	Id.; Erdman, 582 F.3d at 510. That is, unless the applicant or employee can show that he would not have been subjected to an adverse employment action for being absent or requesting time off for a different reason.
38	29 C.F.R. §1630, App. (An employer cannot refuse to hire an individual “because the employer believes that the applicant would have to miss work or frequently leave work early” to care for a disabled person.).
39	See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. §2612.
40	By way of example, employees are not eligible for FMLA leave unless they have worked for the employer for at least a year and have performed at least 1,250 hours of service for the employer during the previous 12 months. Employees are also ineligible if they work at a site where the employer employs less than 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite. 29 U.S.C. §2611.
41	42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(4).
42	Emphasis added. Two of the subsections of Fla. Stat. §760.10 are not expressly limited to “such individual’s,” meaning such applicant’s or employee’s, handicap, but they have limited applicability. The first is subsection (4) of §760.10, which prohibits discriminating against individuals because of handicap in admission to, or employment in, any apprenticeship or other training program. The second is subsection (6) of §760.10, which prohibits employers from publishing any notice or advertisement “indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on. . .absence of handicap.”
44	See also Beatty v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-607-FTM-38CM, 2016 WL 816579, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2016) (“Because this [c]ourt previously found the FCRA does not recognize a claim for associational disability discrimination and because [p]laintiff is procedurally barred from asserting such a claim under the ADA, the [c]ourt dismisses Count III of the [a]mended [c]omplaint with prejudice.”); Cf. Gonzalez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5435789, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2013) (noting that the FCRA “contains no comparable express prohibition against associational disability discrimination,” but “[a]ssuming without deciding” that the FCRA encompasses such claims).
45	See, e.g., Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So. 2d 921, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (noting that when applied to handicap discrimination, “the FCRA is construed in conformity with the federal [ADA].”).
46	The FCRA is modeled after Title VII. Id.
47	See, e.g., Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145 Wash. 2d 379, 390-94 (Wash. 2001) (holding that “the ADA does not provide a clear mandate of Washington public policy in favor of protecting from discrimination able-bodied persons who are related to or associated with a disabled person,” in part because the Washington Legislature had not extended the disability discrimination prohibition in the Washington Law Against Discrimination to include a prohibition against associational discrimination despite the fact that the ADA association provision had been enacted a decade earlier); Flagg v. AliMed, Inc., 466 Mass. 23, 37 (Mass. 2013) (holding that Massachusetts law prohibited associational discrimination even though the state statute did not contain an association provision, in part because the “expansive definition of ‘handicap’” under that statute included individuals “regarded as having such impairment,” which encompasses individuals who may not actually be impaired themselves but are victims of assumptions, myths, or fears about limitations).
48	Some state laws contain association provisions, like the ADA does. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. §41-1463(F).