Opinion ID: 662719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Handicap Discrimination Claim

Text: 7 The North Carolina Handicapped Persons Protection Act (the Act) prohibits employers from discharg[ing], or otherwise ... discriminat[ing] against a qualified handicapped person on the basis of a handicapping condition. N.C. Gen.Stat. Sec. 168A-5(a)(1). It is undisputed that MS is a handicapping condition. Mitchell alleges that Lydall discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable accommodations for his handicapping condition (as required by section 168A-4 of the Act) and by subsequently discharging him. 2 8
9 Mitchell claims that Lydall failed to make reasonable accommodations because: (1) Lydall could have modified Mitchell's prior managerial position by hiring an additional employee to share Mitchell's workload instead of creating a new position for him at a reduced salary, (2) Lydall required Mitchell to attend a disciplinary meeting without his counsel being present, and (3) Lydall created a hostile atmosphere in the bi-weekly review meetings. 10 As to Lydall's failure to hire an additional employee: The Act explicitly precludes a finding of discrimination on this ground.  '[R]easonable accommodation' does not require that an employer: 1. Hire one or more employees ... for the purpose, in whole or in part, of enabling the handicapped person to be employed.... Id. Sec. 168A3(10)(a)(1). Moreover, Mitchell's new salary was higher than that of any other employee in his department, except his supervisor. 11 As to the denial of Mitchell's request to have his lawyer present at the March 15, 1991, final warning meeting: Nothing in the Act or in the record allows us to find that this was discrimination. Lydall had a policy of never permitting lawyers to participate in such meetings. And, the Act provides employers with an affirmative defense when a handicapped employee fails to comply with the employer's work policies. See id. Sec. 168A-9(1). 12 Finally, as to the allegedly hostile atmosphere of the bi-weekly review meetings: Mitchell did not raise this claim below. In any event, Mitchell does not point us to anything in the record to support his contention that the meetings were hostile.
13 The parties dispute whether Mitchell was discharged or whether he resigned. Assuming that Mitchell was discharged, the record indicates that Mitchell was discharged not on the basis of his handicapping condition, but rather for his insubordination (walking out of the meeting). The Act makes clear that employers have an affirmative defense to a discrimination claim when a handicapped person fails to comply with or meet the employer's work rules and policies or performance standards, provided that such person is not held to rules or standards different from other non-handicapped employees similarly employed.... Id. On the discharge issue, the district court concluded: It is undisputed that insubordination is reason enough for dismissal and Mitchell forecasts no evidence to show that he was treated differently than any other employee as to insubordination. We agree.
14 The district court properly granted summary judgment for Lydall on Mitchell's handicap discrimination claim.