Court says termination was not discrimination
HR professionals may find reassurance in a February ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that essentially says employers do not have to be mind-readers to avoid claims of illegal discrimination.
Problems begin after three decades
Haley, 53, had been employed by a car manufacturer for three decades when she began having attendance problems. In a four-month period there were dozens of absences and even when she did come to work, she was often late.
During a one-on-one meeting, Haley’s supervisor expressed concern. The supervisor communicated the need for Haley to:
- Work a 40-hour work week,
- Text if she was planning to take a day off, and
- Get work-from-home approved in advance.
A month after the one-on-one meeting, Haley received a negative performance review followed by a letter that served as a final written warning. Her attendance did not improve, however, and she was terminated.
A diagnosis and a lawsuit
Haley unsuccessfully appealed the termination through the company’s internal grievance process. During that time, Haley was diagnosed with Persistent Depressive Disorder and a brain tumor. She then sued the company for disability discrimination stemming from the after-the-fact diagnosis.
In that lawsuit, a district court ruled in favor of Haley’s employer. The 6th Circuit court of appeals upheld the district court’s ruling.
The district court stated that Haley failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because her purported disability was unknown to either herself or her employer until well after her employment was terminated.
In fact, she was never diagnosed with any medical condition until after her termination. And never sought medical help for any symptoms or conditions from which she was suffering while employed.
Generalized ailments do not a disability make
Haley claimed that before her termination she told her supervisor of symptoms she was suffering from and that she was “depressed.” The text messages, though, to her supervisor were vague.
Many of the texts reference only generalized ailments, such as:
- Haley’s “head … really hurting,”
- Having a “fever and other symptoms,” or
- Simply being “sick.”
Such symptoms are consistent with many short-term, nondisabling ailments, including a common cold.
Other text messages make even more general references to “having a tough time” or dealing with “a mental thing.”
A judge wrote in the court’s opinion that although these messages might have given her supervisor a general awareness of a health issue, that is not enough, explaining, “At bottom, these text messages were not sufficient to apprise the supervisor of a disability, especially when Haley herself was unaware of any disability.”
The judge added that Haley also made only a single, unsubstantiated statement that she was depressed without any corroborating medical evidence and without ever having sought medical help, and she consistently presented the issue as a workplace conflict, not a disability … leaving her employer to “speculate” as to the existence of a disability.
Key to remember: The bottom line in this decision from the 6th Circuit is that an employer cannot discriminate because of an employee’s disability if the employee doesn’t even know about the disability until after the termination.
Hrdlicka v. General Motors