EEOC-Initiated Litigation - 2022 Edition

© 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-Initiated Litigation: 2022 Edition | 33 a disability under the ADA often depends on a fact-specific inquiry as to whether the condition substantially limits a major life activity. For example, EEOC v. Loflin Fabrication, LLC 235 involved a metal fabricating business, which requires the use of dangerous equipment, including welding equipment, lasers, and heavy equipment such as cranes and forklifts . 236 Due to those dangers, the employer prohibited employees from working under the influence of any narcotic and performed random drug testing. The employer also required employees to disclose their prescribed medication so it would know if an employee was taking medicine that would affect his or her ability to work safely in potentially dangerous conditions. 237 The charging party was fired after she failed to disclose that she had been prescribed muscle relaxants for a neck condition until she was selected for a random drug test. 238 The court ultimately granted summary judgment for the employer because the EEOC had failed to establish that the pain in the charging party’s neck substantially limited a major life activity . 239 Several recent decisions considered whether and to what extent emotional and mental problems rise to the level of a disability under the ADA. For example, in EEOC v. Crain Automotive Holdings LLC , 240 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas held that anxiety and panic attacks could rise to the level of a disability under the ADA and that whether her impairment substantially limited a major life activity was a question of fact for the jury. 241 But in EEOC v. West Meade Place LLP , 242 the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee held that a charging party’s anxiety condition did not rise to the level of a disability under the ADA because the EEOC had not met its burden to establish that the charging party had a history of anxiety of such severity that it substantially limited one or more of her major life activities. 243 On February 8, 2021, however, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, holding that it had misapplied the ADA as amended in 2008 . 244 Those amendments made it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an individual who is regarded as having a disability, “whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” 245 The Sixth Circuit explained that an ADA action under the “regarded as” prong “requires no showing about the severity of the impairment,” and “an employee need only show that their employer believed they had a ‘physical or mental impairment,’ as that term is defined in federal regulations. Once an employee establishes that the employer perceived him or her as having an impairment, the employee must 235 EEOC v. Loflin Fabrication, LLC , 462 F. Supp. 3d 586 (M.D.N.C. 2020). 236 Id. at 590. 237 Id. at 591. 238 The court noted that the ADA prohibits employers from requiring a medical examination or making inquiries of an employee’s possible disability unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Id. at 595. However, there was inconsistent evidence as to whether the employer’s policy required the disclosure of all prescriptions or just narcotic prescriptions. Id. at 598. Moreover, it was unclear whether the employer had ever inquired into whether the charging party’s prescription was a narcotic. Id. Faced with those disputed issues of fact, the court denied summary judgment to the employer on this aspect of the EEOC’s claim. Id. 239 Id. at 601-03. 240 EEOC v. Crain Auto. Holdings LLC , 372 F. Supp. 3d 751 (E.D. Ark. 2019). 241 Id. at 755. In that case, the EEOC brought a lawsuit on behalf of a charging party who suffered from anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. Id. at 753. The charging party experienced chest pains and went to the emergency room. After two days of treatment, she learned that her chest pain was the result of a panic attack. Id. When she returned to work, she was terminated by her supervisors, who allegedly told her that “it was not working out” due to her health problems and that she needed to take care of herself. Id. at 753-54. The court found that the charging party’s panic attacks made her feel paralyzed, caused chest pain, and caused difficulty with breathing, thinking, communicating with others, and reasoning. Moreover, her depression caused her to be unable to care for herself, communicate with others, or think coherently. Id. at 755. 242 EEOC v. West Meade Place LLP , No. 3:18-CV-101, 2019 WL 5394314 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 22, 2019). 243 Id. at *6. 244 EEOC v. West Meade Place LLP , No. 19-6469, 2021 WL 424444 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2021). 245 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A).