An employee cited an HR professional's e-mail to raise concerns about his health as evidence of discrimination. A federal district court relied on the e-mail to let the claim move forward.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in a lawsuit filed in New Orleans federal district court, that Mid-South Extrusion, Inc. - a plastics manufacturer based in Monroe, La. - violated federal law by firing an employee because of his perceived disability.
Keith Hill - Field Director for the EEOC's New Orleans office - stated:
"It is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee with a disability because of his medical condition(s) if he is able to perform the essential functions of his job with or without any accommodation."
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, maintenance technician Jeffrey Wyant was discharged after he informed the company of his 50% lung capacity breathing restriction resulting from undiagnosed childhood tuberculosis. He was able to perform the essential functions of his job. The lawsuit also alleges that the company did not conduct any intensive individualized assessment of Mr Wyant - as required by law - to determine if his condition affected his ability to perform the essential functions of the position before discharging him.
The EEOC sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the company from engaging in employment discrimination, as well as back pay, compensatory damages, pecuniary losses and punitive damages for Mr Wyant.
In September 2014, Mr Wyant was hired as a maintenance technician by Mid South and after accepting the job offer, he completed a post-offer medical history questionnaire. He divulged that he had a previous shoulder injury that limited his range of motion and overhead lifting ability but did not mention any other impairments or conditions.
Mr Wyant completed his 90-day probationary period and received a pay increase. However, soon after, his supervisor noticed performance issues and had concerns about his ability to safely work in the plant. Complaints were also received that he smelled strongly of alcohol. In addition to this, it was alleged that he delegated work to untrained employees and for these incidents he received verbal warnings.
In June 2015, Mr Wyatt began having breathing problems and was diagnosed as having reduced breathing capacity - due to breathing asbestos at a prior job - and undiagnosed tuberculosis as a child or young man, now dormant. It was decided that he needed a heart catheter and the procedure was arranged for Aug. 18, 2015.
Prior to this, he had a meeting with an HR manager and as a result of that meeting on Aug. 13, 2015, the HR manager e-mailed Mr Wyant’s supervisor writing that Mr Wyant "stated that his doctor says he doesn't need to be working in this environment with all the health problems he has" and he "should get out on disability." The HR manager went on to say that this "raised a red flag" for her and added that Mr Wyant’s issues originated from a previous job. She then wrote that this "really bothers" her.
Mr Wyant had the heart catheterization on Aug 18, 2015 and returned to work 3 days later but mid Sep 2015 he suffered a breathing difficulty, which he claimed cleared 10 minutes after the use of his inhaler.
He was scheduled to receive his annual review, at which he would have received a raise, 10 more sick days per year and 40 hours of paid vacation per year - but in an e-mail dated Sept. 21, 2015, his supervisor told the HR manager that Mr Wyant was being fired because he “was not qualified to be a maintenance technician.” Mr Wyant claimed that his supervisor told him that management wanted him gone.
A charge was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Mr Wyant, alleging that he was fired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC agreed and issued a letter of determination in favor of Mr Wyant and later brought a federal lawsuit. Mid South filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied.
Michelle Butler - Senior Trial Attorney for the New Orleans Field Office - said:
"Mr. Wyant was performing his duties without any restrictions, but once he informed the employer of his medical issues, he was discharged based on an unsubstantiated determination that he was not able to perform his duties. This is unlawful as well as unjust, and the EEOC is here to fight such discrimination."
