Recently, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first appellate court to offer insight into the American with Disabilities Act Amendments Act’s (ADAAA) broadened definition of the term “disability.”
Previously, courts interpreting the ADA typically did not consider impairments that were only temporary in nature to be disabilities. In 2008, however, Congress passed the ADAAA providing that the definition of disability “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals . . . to the maximum extent permitted.” Now, in Summers v. Altarum Inst. Corp., there is guidance from an appellate court as to what types of temporary impairments may fall under the broadened definition of disability.
Carl Summers, the plaintiff in this case, fell while working and sustained fractures and tendon injuries to both of his legs. His medical providers instructed him not to put any weight on his left leg for six weeks and estimated he would not be able to walk normally for at least seven months. Mr. Summers made efforts to communicate with his employer regarding accommodations that would allow him to return to work sooner; however, his employer did not discuss a return to work plan with Mr. Summers, and instead, terminated him from his position.
Mr. Summers filed a complaint against his employer for its failure to accommodate his disability and for wrongful discharge based on his disability. His employer argued given that Mr. Summers was expected to fully recover from his leg injuries, a temporary condition, he was not actually disabled under the ADA. The trial court in the Eastern District of Virginia agreed with the employer and dismissed both claims. The court reasoned that since Mr. Summers was expected to heal within one year, his temporary injury did not constitute a disability.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court and reinstated Mr. Summers’ claims. The appellate court determined that although Mr. Summers’ impairment was temporary, his injuries were sufficiently severe to render him substantially limited in walking, a major life activity. In reaching this decision, the appellate court gave heavy deference to the EEOC’s regulations issued in 2011 after Congress amended the ADA. The Fourth Circuit noted that according to the EEOC, an impairment may still be substantially limiting even if it lasts fewer than six months, such as a 20-pound lifting restriction lasting several months.
Following the EEOC’s example, the Fourth Circuit reasoned, “surely a person whose broken legs and injured tendons render him completely immobile for more than seven months is also disabled.”
While we wait for other appellate courts (including ours here in Pennsylvania) to weigh-in on this topic, employers should be aware that this broadened definition of disability affords ADA protection for many more employees.
The Eastern Pennsylvania Employment Log (EPELog) is a publication of the KingSpry Employment Law Practice Group. Jeffrey T. Tucker, Esquire, is our editor-in-chief. EPELog is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
