Course Hero Logo

Becker v elmwood 2012 wl 13569 nd ohio jan 4 2012

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 713 - 715 out of 1338 pages.

Becker v. Elmwood, 2012 WL 13569 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2012), aff’d, 519 F. App’x 339 (6th Cir.2013).The court granted the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment on adisability discrimination claim brought by a teacher with obsessive compulsive disorder, findingthat the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action because the circumstances of hisresignation did not constitute a constructive discharge.However, in its analysis, the courtrejected the defendant’s reliance on pre-ADAAA cases requiring that, for “regarded as” coverage,the employer have perceived the employee to have had an impairment that substantially limits amajor life activity, and ruled instead that “[t]he ADA now includes perceived disabilities‘whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.’”Dube v. Texas Health & Human Servs. Comm’n, 2012 WL 2397566 (W.D. Tex. June 25, 2012).The plaintiff alleged that she was discriminated against when she was discharged rather thangranted additional leave after having taken an 11-week absence from work for treatment andrecuperation from lumalgia with facet arthritis.The plaintiff asserted that she was proceedingonly under the “regarded as” prong of coverage (and therefore was not entitled toaccommodation), yet argued that the employer should have granted her additional leave until shewas medically cleared to return to work.Granting summary judgment for the employer, thecourt ruled that the plaintiff had merely relied on her subjective belief and conclusory statementsthat she was regarded as disabled.
699Harris v. Reston Hosp. Ctr., 2012 WL 1080990 (E.D. Va. Mar. 26, 2012), aff’d, 523 F. App’x938 (4th Cir. 2013).Granting summary judgment to the employer on the plaintiff’s claim thatshe was terminated based on perceived alcoholism or drug addiction, the court held that theplaintiff had not established “regarded as” coverage.The statement by the plaintiff’s supervisor“you’re drunk,” observations of the plaintiff’s being impaired at work, and knowledge that theplaintiff had previously gone to a rehabilitation facility to be treated for depression and a suicideattempt were insufficient to show that management perceived the plaintiff as having animpairment.Wallner v. MHV Sonics, Inc., 2011 WL 5358749 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2011).Granting summaryjudgment for the employer on plaintiffs’ ADA claim, the court rejected plaintiffs’ assertion thatthey were “regarded as” individuals with disabilities when they were terminated due to theirperceived fear that their lives were in danger due to workplace robberies.(2)Impairment Was “Transitory and Minor”Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 765 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2014).The plaintiff, acredentialing assistant, broke a bone in her hand connecting her wrist to her pinky finger, andtook FMLA leave because the injury interfered with her ability to type.After a certain period ofleave, she was replaced by someone else, but remained an employee until her failure to contactthe employer at the conclusion of her leave, whereupon she was deemed to have voluntarilyresigned.She brought suit alleging violations of the FMLA retaliation and interferenceprovisions, as well as the ADA.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 1338 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
NoProfessor
Tags

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture