Dive Brief:

• An employee's inability to perform his job because of the stress created by the job did not make him an individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. "Rather, an employee alleging a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working must show that the limitation affects the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs," the appeals court said (Woolf v. Strada, et al., No. 19-860-cv (2nd Cir. Feb. 6, 2020)).
• Ronald Woolf, a sales representative for Bloomberg L.P., sued his former employer and his direct supervisors claiming that he was not able to do the job because of migraines caused by work stress. Woolf had received job reviews ranking him in the lower third of employees at the company. His treating neurologist provided a letter explaining that Woolf was at risk for a stroke or heart attack because of the stress he was experiencing at work, the court said. Woolf asked for a transfer and eventually for different supervisors. The transfer was denied but Woolf was granted medical leave with full pay and the court noted that the employer "regularly encouraged Woolf to take medical leave to address his medical condition." Woolf was fired after another low performance review.
• The district court held that Woolf did not have a disability because, while the plaintiff's condition leaves him unable to perform only a single job, he failed to establish a substantial impairment to his major life activity of working and it noted that he had admitted he could do the job if he had different supervisors. The appeals court agreed, observing that "the record amply demonstrates that Woolf believed he could perform the same job if he were transferred to a different location or if he were managed by different supervisors" and that Woolf had not attempted to show that his "work-induced impairment" substantially limited his ability to work in a broad range of jobs.

Dive Insight:

The ADA protects qualified individuals with a disability from workplace bias as long as the employer has 15 or more employees. A person with a disability, as defined by the ADA, is someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Examples of major life activities include a broad range of activities including walking, talking and working, according to the ADA National Network.

Woolf argued that the trial court had used the stricter definition of disability in use before the passage of the ADA amendments act. The appeals court disagreed with Woolf and noted that it was joining its "sister Circuits" in holding that the 2008 amendments did not alter the ADA's "well-settled understanding" that the inability to do a particular job did not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.

Although employers are quick to accept an employee's claim that he or she is disabled under the ADA, this case illustrates that not all conditions qualify as a disability and poor job performance can and should be appropriately addressed, wrote Squire Patton Boggs Associate Melissa Legault in a blog post. She also cautioned that employers should remember that some state and local laws provide broader coverage than the ADA.