Opinion ID: 3011078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Liability for Mistakes

Text: What a regarded as plaintiff must do to put the employer on notice that its perception is erroneous is an extremely difficult question. Pathmark in effect argues that: (1) until Taylor provided definitive notice of his ability to work and corrected Pathmark's belief, it cannot be held liable for considering him unable to work; and (2) his provision of notice proves that Pathmark correctly understood his condition after that point. We deal with Pathmark's second claim infra Section III.E, while in this section we make clear that Pathmark has the initial responsibility to evaluate employees correctly. Pathmark argues that reliance on information given by the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's agent) cannot found an ADA regarded as cause of action. As Pathmark puts it, For as long [as] Dr. Moore's report led Pathmark to believe that Taylor required a sedentary position, Pathmark was entitled to act accordingly. Pathmark's broad assertion cannot carry the day under the peculiar facts of this case. In most regarded as cases, it is likely that information on an employee's abilities comes from the employee or his agent, but the source of the information will not necessarily be determinative. The fact is that Dr. Moore's report labelled Taylor's restrictions temporary, not permanent. At all events, Taylor never provided Pathmark with the conclusion that he was substantially limited in a major life activity such that there were no jobs at Pathmark that he could perform, with or without accommodation. This case is dominated by miscommunications and misinterpretations, 16 and one of the points of regarded as protection is that employers cannot misinterpret information about an employee's limitations to conclude that the employee is incapable of performing a wide range of jobs. We find the cases Pathmark cites on reasonable reliance to be inapposite. In Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382 (8th Cir. 1995), for example, the court held that the evidence of an employer's perception of an employee's abilities based on a doctor's note provided by the employee was insufficient to establish a regarded as claim. The court held that Wooten's employer's perceptions were not based on stereotype or myth but on a doctor's written restrictions. But the law in this circuit is that aregarded as plaintiff can make out a case if the employer is innocently wrong about the extent of his or her impairment: Although the legislative history indicates that Congress was concerned about eliminating society's myths, fears, stereotypes and prejudices with respect to the disabled, the EEOC's Regulations and Interpretive Guidelines make clear that even an innocent misperception based on nothing more than a simple mistake of fact as to the severity, or even the very existence, of an individual's impairment can be sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition of a perceived disability. Thus whether or not [the defendant] was motivated by myth, fear or prejudice is not determinative of [the plaintiff 's] regarded as claim. Deane, 142 F.3d at 144 (citation omitted). Similarly, Riemer v. Illinois Department of Transportation, 148 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 1998), sustained a regarded as claim where the employer's misperception about the effects of the plaintiff 's asthma, based on a doctor's report, led it to exclude the plaintiff from an entire class of jobs, and in Johnson v. American Chamber of Commerce Publishers, Inc., 108 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 1997), the court wrote, If for no reason whatsoever an employer regards a person as disabled--if, for example, because of a blunder in reading medical records, it imputes to him a heart condition he never had--and takes adverse action, it has violated the statute . . . . Id. at 819; see also Dipol, 999 F. Supp. at 314 17 (the fact that the employer, after receiving information from a doctor, immediately placed the plaintiff on no-work status made out a regarded as claim); Mendez v. Gearan, 956 F. Supp. 1520, 1525 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (employer's mistaken perception that a temporary impairment was permanent could found a regarded as claim).4 We acknowledge the force of Pathmark's argument that it relied on information supplied by Taylor's doctor in concluding that it had no job available that met his restrictions during the period from October 1995 to December 1995 (Taylor informed Pathmark that the severe restrictions had been lifted on December 19). Taylor has not disputed that he did, in fact, have those temporarily heightened restrictions after the aggravation of his ankle injury. We conclude that a directed verdict as to that period was proper, because he has not disputed Pathmark's claim that restrictions of such severity precluded him from any Pathmark jobs, even with accommodation. Pathmark further argues that it was reasonable to rely on Dr. Moore's first evaluation until June 1996, when Dr. Moore filled out an updated questionnaire.5 We cannot, however, say that Pathmark's reliance on Dr. Moore'sfirst report necessarily excuses it entirely from liability. An employer can rely on an employee's information about restrictions, but it has to be right when it decides that those restrictions are permanent and that they prevent the employee from performing a wide class of jobs, as opposed _________________________________________________________________ 4. Dotson v. Electro-Wire Products, Inc., 890 F. Supp. 982 (D. Kan. 1995), another case cited by Pathmark, is distinguishable. In that case, the physician's note at issue did not describe an impairment that could reasonably be thought to substantially limit the plaintiff in a major life activity. On receipt, the defendant did not change the plaintiff 's job duties or take other actions to indicate that it considered her incapable of doing the general class of job. See id. at 991. In contrast, Pathmark sent Taylor a letter saying that his restrictions were permanent and that he was fired. 5. Pathmark characterizes this second questionnaire as a changed diagnosis. This is arguably a critical misdescription, since Taylor contends that Dr. Moore's restrictions were always temporary, as he indicated on the first form, and so the second form simply reflected the fact that the temporary restrictions had been lifted. 18 to one particular and limited job. An employer who simply, and erroneously, believes that a person is incapable of performing a particular job will not be liable under the ADA. Liability attaches only to a mistake that causes the employer to perceive the employee as disabled within the meaning of the ADA, i.e., a mistake that leads the employer to think that the employee is substantially limited in a major life activity. Pathmark argues that imperfection in its internal procedures--apparently a communication gap between the ADA Committee and those responsible for making an employment decision about Taylor--should not lead to ADA liability. Yet if the relevant decisionmakers wrongly believed that Taylor was completely unable to work because of miscommunication within Pathmark, the ADA puts on Pathmark the burden of correcting the problem, rather than leaving Taylor out in the cold. Cf. Deane, 142 F.3d at 149 (suggesting that informal cooperation and communication to correct mistakes is appropriate in a regarded as situation). Taylor offered Pathmark updated information on his condition on December 19, 1995, and he had Dr. Moore send further information after he received Pathmark's May 1996 letter; therefore, we cannot say that he is unarguably responsible for the misunderstanding. Except for the limited period noted above, judgment as a matter of law for Pathmark is inappropriate, because a reasonable jury could find that Taylor was not responsible for the error. In that case, Pathmark could be liable, even if its mistake were otherwise innocent. But on remand, Pathmark has a possible defense of reasonability, which we describe in greater detail in the next section.