|
Most courts recognize that employers may place limits on the amount of leave
employees take. Thus, firing an employee who fails to return to work from leave is not
discrimination if the policy is reasonable and consistently applied.
Get your FREE
access to this and 100's of FREE HR resources today.
Firing a 58-year-old employee for not returning to work after the expiration of a
disability leave was not discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in
Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods, No. 95-5355 (5/12/98), decided that a consistently applied
leave policy does not violate the ADA, even if it results in the termination of an
employee on disability leave. Further, the employer’s failure to accommodate an
unknown disability cannot be considered discrimination. In addition, the firing was not
age discrimination since there was no proof of the employer’s discriminatory intent
against older employees.
Employee Claimed Leave Policy Targeted Older, Disabled Employees
[Download
Free Policies]
In this case, the employee took disability leave for shoulder surgery and recovery. The
employer’s leave policy stated that disability leave is limited to one year. When the
employer contacted the employee, the employee indicated she did not know when she would
return or what physical limitations she would have. After one year, the employer fired her
for violating the policy. The employee’s physician released her to return to work two
weeks later, but the employee did not challenge her termination or request reemployment.
The employee was 58 years old at the time of her firing.
[Creating HR Policies or Employee Handbook?]
The employee filed suit, alleging discrimination under the ADA because the leave policy
had a disparate impact on disabled employees and because the employer did not accommodate
her disability. Further, the employee alleged that the leave policy violated the ADEA
because it had a disparate impact upon older employees who would require a longer
disability leave. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the
employee appealed.
Consistently-Applied Policies Are Not Discriminatory
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision. In its
opinion, the court dismissed the ADA claims, stating that the employer’s leave policy
treated all employees consistently by terminating those who did not return to work within
one year. Further, the court noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s
interpretive guidelines to the ADA regulations require the disabled employee to inform the
employer of the need for an accommodation. Since the employee did not request an
accommodation or tell the employer about any physical limitations, the employer had no
duty to accommodate her.
On the age discrimination claim, the court stated the employee did not prove that older
employees require a longer leave of absence. Further, the court noted that the employee
could not prove the employer had a discriminatory intent because the employee was not
replaced with a younger employee, and the employer did not target older employees by
firing her.
Apply Leave Policies Uniformly
This case gives employers some guidance on how leaves should be treated under the ADA. An
employer may have a leave policy that limits the time period of a disability leave, and
the policy generally will not violate the ADA as long as it is applied consistently. In
addition, employers may have to extend the leave limit if this would be a reasonable
accommodation but only if the employer knows about the actual need for accommodation.
However, indefinite leaves typically are not considered to be reasonable accommodations.
|
Personnel
Policy Service, Inc.
