This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Larimer was absent or distracted at work because of his wife's pregnancy or the birth and
hospitalization of his daughters. As for (1), there is to begin with no evidence that health
benefits are in the budget of the unit of IBM that employed and discharged Larimer. Cf.
Rogers v. International Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 755, 761 (5th Cir.1996). Benefits
can be in a unit's budget in multiple ways. For example, IBM may charge every
manager's budget with a fringe-benefit allocation for each employee in his unit that is
equivalent to the premiums for health insurance allocable to the employee, or,
alternatively, with the dollar amounts actually paid in benefits to the unit's employees or
their dependents. In the latter case but not the former, the manager would care about the
actual expense for health services to the relatives of an employee in his unit because that
expense would be in his budget. But there is no evidence that expenses are accounted for
in that fashion. If IBM has a profit-sharing plan or pays bonuses based in part on
company-wide performance, all employees who participate in the plan or receive such a
bonus--and presumably they would include Larimer's supervisors--have a financial stake
in the company's performance and thus a stake, however attenuated, in the firing of an
"expensive" employee. But Larimer has made no effort to pitch his case on such ground
Having no evidence, Larimer falls back on the ubiquitous McDonnell Douglas test for a
prima facie case of employment discrimination. Den Hartog, the case with the most
extensive discussion of the ADA's association provision, purports to use a version of the
test that requires the plaintiff to show that "(1) the plaintiff was 'qualified' for the job at
the time of the adverse employment action; (...
View Full Document
- Spring '08