| Issues and Answers | ||
| Can an employer pay a veteran less upon return from military leave? | |||
|
| Test Your Human Resources Knowledge | ||
|
| Labor Law Journal Submissions | ||
|
| Human Resources Links | ||
|
| Labor Arbitrators' Awards and Biographies | ||
U.S. Master Pension Guide, 2012 Edition
Part of CCH's Master Series of professional guidebooks. The book provides a comprehensive explanatory overview of qualified retirement plans and other retirement arrangements, reflecting up-to-date law changes and regulations. Benefit COLAs, calendars, and tables reflect the year 2012 figures.
from Spencer’s Benefits Reports: The United States Postal Service (USPS) did not engage in unlawful disability discrimination when it terminated a mail handler who was not able to perform the essential functions of his job. This was the decision of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Adams v. Potter (No. 05-5811).
Charles M. Adams was a staff sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps, and in 1992, he sustained a spinal injury in a motor vehicle accident. Mr. Adams underwent back surgery in November 1992 to remove a disc and fuse his vertebrae together. After the surgery, the Marines concluded that Mr. Adams was partially disabled by his spinal injury, and he received a medical discharge in 1993.
Following his discharge, Mr. Adams entered civilian employment, and on Jan. 6, 1996, he became a mail handler for the USPS. Mail handlers load and unload containers of mail, which requires them to stand, walk, and bend, as well as lift and carry as much as 70 pounds. On Aug. 27, 1996, Mr. Adams reinjured his back while working, but he continued to work and sought no medical treatment for 16 months. Finally, on Dec. 7, 1997, Mr. Adams consulted his physician, and the physician placed Mr. Adams on indefinite medical leave from the USPS. In March 1998, Mr. Adams underwent two back surgeries to replace the damaged hardware in his spine. Mr. Adams remained on medical leave while recuperating from his surgeries. Then, in October 1998, Mr. Adams’ physicians cleared him to return to work, but only with restrictions. Accordingly, Mr. Adams requested a light-duty assignment with the USPS.
Meanwhile, in conjunction with a workers’ compensation claim, Mr. Adams was required to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation. That evaluation, which was completed on Aug. 12, 1999, determined that Mr. Adams was not capable of performing the essential functions of his mail handler position and concluded that reasonable accommodations would not enable him to perform the job safely. Mr. Adams then asked the USPS to accommodate his restrictions by permitting him to work seated for half the workday and provide assistance to him when the mail handler position required him to lift 70 pounds. Alternatively, Mr. Adams requested reassignment to a light-duty position or transfer to a clerical position. However, at an accommodation meeting, the USPS determined that accommodating Mr. Adams’ restrictions, while permitting him to continue working as a mail handler, would eliminate essential functions of the mail handler position. The USPS also concluded that no positions were available to Mr. Adams that would permit him to work with his restrictions. Accordingly, the USPS terminated Mr. Adams on June 26, 2000.
Subsequently, Mr. Adams filed suit against the USPS in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, alleging that his termination violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. However, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the USPS, holding that Mr. Adams had failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Mr. Adams appealed, but the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.
In rendering its decision, the Sixth Circuit initially explained, “To make out a prima facie employment discrimination case, a plaintiff must show (1) that she or he is an individual with a disability, (2) who was otherwise qualified to perform a job’s requirements, with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3) who was discriminated against solely because of the disability. Adams’ disability discrimination claim must fail because he has not demonstrated that he is a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of his postal service job with or without reasonable accommodation. The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to Adams, suggests that his back problems place some restrictions on his activities but not considerable limitations on his major life activities. Therefore, to classify Adams as disabled because he cannot lift heavy objects or stand for long periods of time would require a broad definition of disability—a definition that would cover almost everyone who suffers from back problems. Such a definition is too broad.”
The Sixth Circuit went on to conclude, “Adams has failed to demonstrate that he is a qualified individual with a disability. To be a qualified individual with a disability, Adams would have to be able to perform the essential functions of his postal service job with or without reasonable accommodation. Adams does not dispute that he cannot perform the essential functions of the mail handler position without accommodation. Rather, he proposed accommodations that would permit him to continue working for the USPS—accommodations which he has the burden of establishing as reasonable. His first proposed accommodation—working for half the day from a seated position and receiving assistance to lift 70 pounds or more—is not a reasonable accommodation because it would require the USPS to eliminate essential functions of the mail handler job. His second and third proposed accommodations are no more reasonable. Consequently, even if Adams’ back problems disable him, the USPS permissibly terminated his employment.”
For more information on this and related topics, consult the CCH Pension Plan Guide, CCH Employee Benefits Management, and Spencer's Benefits Reports.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
©2005-2012 CCH Incorporated or its affiliates
