Recent Supreme Court Developments In Employment Law - Part I
© 1999 by Elliott A. Myles, Esq.
5870 Stoneridge Mall Road,
Ste. 207
Pleasanton, CA
94588
(925)
463-2221
fax: (925) 463-0328
On June 22, 1999, the United State Supreme Court issued four important opinions regarding the rights and liability of employers with respect to employment discrimination lawsuits.
In three of these opinions - Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg - the Court favored employers by clearly requiring individuals who sue for disability discrimination to prove that they have an actual, substantially limiting disability.
In the fourth opinion - Kolstad v. American Dental Association - the Court favored employees by broadening the circumstances under which an employer may be liable for punitive damages.
Sutton, Murphy and Albertson's
The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, or ADA, generally prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against qualified individuals on the basis of a disability. Under the Act, a "disability" may be either (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of an individual's major life activities; (2) a record of having such an impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment.
In Sutton, Murphy, and Albertson's, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a person who sues his or her employer or potential employer for disability discrimination under the ADA must prove that -
1. He or she (a) suffers from, (b) has a record of suffering from, or (c) is regarded by the employer as suffering from, a physical or mental condition;
2. That, after correction or mitigation through self-improvement or other treatment, such as glasses, contact lenses, prostheses or medication;
3. Substantially and actually limits the person's own major life activities.
The Court held that it is not sufficient for the individual to show merely that he or she has a physical or mental condition which "might," "could," or "would" make the way that person does things different from the way others do things. It is also not sufficient to show that the individual's impairment merely stops him or her from working at one job within a class of employment where his or her skills could be used.
These three opinions limit the ability of impaired, but not disabled, individuals to sue for disability discrimination. They also offer employers an opportunity to challenge disability discrimination lawsuits more easily and at an earlier stage. If a disability plaintiff fails to provide evidence early in a case of his or her disability, an employer may then move the court to dismiss the lawsuit or to enter judgment in its favor, long before the parties engage in costly discovery, pretrial or trial matters.
Like the ADA, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or FEHA also prohibits disability based discrimination in employment. FEHA applies to employers with 5 or more employees. Although the FEHA and ADA definitions of "disability" differ, the principles adopted by the Supreme Court in Sutton, Murphy, and Albertson's should apply with equal force to individual's suing under FEHA. Accordingly, it is likely that the number of disability discrimination lawsuits will decrease on both a federal and state level.
Kolstad
In Kolstad, the Court made it easier for plaintiffs to prove punitive damages against an employer for a discriminatory decision, but also provided employers with a limited but total defense to a claim for punitive damages. Under this decision, to prove liability for punitive damages, a plaintiff must only show that the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference to the plaintiff's federal rights in discriminating against the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not have to show that the employer's discriminatory conduct was also outrageous or egregious. On the other hand, where the discriminatory decision was made by a managerial employee or an agent of the employer, the employer can escape liability for punitive damages by showing that it made a good faith effort to comply with the federal anti-discrimination statutes.
While the Court's decisions in Sutton, Murphy, and Albertson's are likely to lead to a general decrease in disability discrimination litigation, its decision in Kolstad is likely to increase litigation with respect to punitive damages in all discrimination cases.
© 1999 by Elliott A. Myles, Esq. All rights reserved.
FOR A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF THIS TOPIC CLICK HERE