Dive Brief:
- An appeals court should revive a former FedEx worker’s claim that the employer discriminated against him based on his hemorrhoid condition, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued in an amicus brief filed with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday.
- A Pennsylvania district court erred when it determined the plaintiff could not show he had a disability, EEOC said. The agency found that the pain of hemorrhoids reported by the worker amounted to a substantially limiting impairment.
- In weighing in, the EEOC critiqued the court’s analysis of one element that can make or break a disability discrimination case — namely, what the law considers a “substantial limitation” in performing a major life activity.
Dive Insight:
At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which defines a person with a disability as someone who “has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.”
According to court documents, the worker in Butler v. FedEx Supply Chain Inc. had a hemorrhoids condition that, when he experienced a flareup, caused pain and bleeding during bowel movements, as well as pain when sitting, walking and standing. The pain “was far from trivial,” EEOC noted, requiring him to use a special pillow to sit and sometimes even be on bed rest.
The worker asked for and was granted intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which he used when he experienced intense pain associated with the condition. He also took roughly two months of FMLA leave for a related surgery and recovery. He was put on a performance improvement plan upon his return and fired about one month later for alleged performance issues, which he interpreted as discrimination based on his disability and use of protected leave.
The district court granted FedEx summary judgment, determining that no reasonable jury could find “his hemorrhoids condition substantially limited his ability to sit or stand or pass bowel movements at any point in time prior to his termination.”
EEOC urged the 3rd Circuit to vacate the lower court’s ruling, pointing to the ADA Amendments Act, which Congress passed in 2008 to expand the scope of the ADA. The law favors broad interpretations of “disability” and explicitly rejected prior narrowly construed interpretations of the term “substantially limits,” the agency said.
Within this scope, EEOC said, “an impairment may be substantially limiting when it causes an individual difficulty or pain in performing a major life activity,” even when it is only episodic.
“Simply put, the fact that an individual can manage to perform a major life activity, but only with great difficulty or pain, does not preclude a finding that he is substantially limited,” EEOC argued.