Monday, January 13, 2025

ADA covers more than those who are limited in their ability to work


What happens when an employer ignores the definition of "disability" under the ADA? A lawsuit—and a lesson in what not to do. A recent 6th Circuit decision highlights how important it is to get the definition right—and why denying a reasonable accommodation like a job transfer can land you in legal trouble.

In Simon v. University Hospitals, the plaintiff requested a transfer to another location after experiencing heightened PTSD, anxiety, and depression following a miscarriage. Her impairments weren't just workplace-related; they impacted her ability to sleep, think, concentrate, and interact with others—key "major life activities" under the ADA.

The employer denied her request, citing a blanket policy against transfers, and terminated her for not returning to work. The district court sided with the employer, saying she wasn't "disabled" because her condition didn't substantially limit her ability to work. But the 6th Circuit reversed. Why? Because the ADA doesn't just look at "working" when defining a disability. It's about whether an impairment substantially limits any major life activity. And here, the plaintiff presented plenty of evidence of how her condition affected her daily life beyond work.

Equally important: the employer's refusal to even consider a transfer as a reasonable accommodation. The ADA requires employers to explore reasonable ways to help employees perform their jobs—including transferring to an open position when the circumstances call for it. Blanket policies that preclude this are, simply put, illegal.

Employers, if you're not considering the full scope of an employee's condition and how it impacts their life, you're missing the point of the ADA. And denying a reasonable accommodation like a transfer without even considering it? That's a fast track to litigation.