8th Circuit case refines "regarded as" prong of ADA definition of disability

Ollie v. Titan Tire Corp. (8th Cir. July 15, 2003) involved an asthmatic employee whose preemployment physical report said he was “medically able to do the essential functions of the job with accomodations listed below.” The space below said he “may have difficulty in areas with dust and fumes.” The employer took this as an absolute prohibition on working in such areas, and because there were no jobs available in areas without dust and fumes, did not hire him.

The court focused on the difference between maybe having difficulty working in such areas and being absolutely prohibited from working there (the employer noted on the application: “asthma, no working where dust or fumes”). It found sufficient evidence the employer regarded the plaintiff as disabled to sustain a jury verdict.

The court here seems to be splitting hairs. But “regarded as” is a potential way for plaintiffs to avoid the fate of so many ADA cases–being found insufficiently impaired to qualify as disabled and hence covered by the ADA–and the court may be seeking to open the door to the courthouse just a bit.

Employers may rely on medical opinions and restrictions, but not do so blindly, and should not ignore the careful hedging that may be found in many a doctor’s report. Here the employer, according to the court, read the report too broadly, with disastrous results.

Sphere: Related Content