If I could drink up your collective skepticism when it comes to these Americans with Disabilities Act cases…
…I’d need my stomach pumped.
Let’s see. There’s the one about the utilityman who couldn’t climb utility poles, but had an ADA claim against a utility company. And then who can forget the bridge worker with the fear of heights who presented a viable ADA claim?
And what about the stripper who feared climbing the stripper pole?
Let’s travel down to Texas, where everything’s bigger; including the wacky ADA cases.
This latest doozy made it all the way to the Texas Supreme Court.
The firefighter’s doctor noted an episode of global transient amnesia but approved his return to work. The City, however, was all like, WTH?!? and fought the firefighter’s return to active duty in court.
The firefighter countersued, alleging that his employer had violated the ADA when it reassigned him to the training academy and refused to restore him to his prior position in fire suppression.
A jury found in the firefighter’s favor on the ADA claim and an appellate court affirmed.
Yeah, no. He’s not disabled.
The Texas Supreme Court; however, reversed. It concluded that the firefighter was not disabled:
“There is no evidence from which a reasonable and fair-minded jury could conclude that Proler was disabled. The jury heard evidence of two incidents where Proler was allegedly unable to provide useful help to his firefighting team during actual fires at two residential buildings. Being unable to set aside the normal fear of entering a burning building is not a mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.
* * *
…If one considers the NBA, the capacity to play professional basketball is an ability; the rest of us do not suffer from a disability because we cannot play at that level. A job skill required for a specific job is not a disability if most people lack that skill.”
But what about a perceived disability? Because even if the firefighter is not disabled, if the City perceived him as such, and it motivated an adverse employment action, then ka-$hing!
But alas, no, the Texas Supreme Court was not buying that argument:
“But there is no evidence from which a reasonable and fair-minded jury could find that the City perceived Proler to be suffering from a mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity. The evidence was entirely to the contrary–indicating Proler was removed from a front-line firefighting position only because City decision-makers had received information that Proler had frozen at two fires, and he was therefore perceived to be unable to do his particular job as captain of a firefighting crew. Even Proler’s mother agreed that the department acted properly in removing him from the scene of the second fire.”
There’s no strikethrough on that last sentence, is there?
***Evernotes reminder to raise the “mother agreed” defense next time I litigate in Texas***
Takeaways from this post:
- I regret not going with this song.
- This case was decided based on the ADA, prior to its 2009 amendment. As y’all (what I did there, you see it) know, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act now makes it hella-easy to demonstrate a disability.
- I SLAYED the list below. Crushed it! (First song is NSFW)