Supervisor a Headache? Court Says No to ADA Claim

An employee who complains of migraines affecting the ability to perform essential job functions will usually draw the attention of HR. Migraines can be debilitating, and there is good reason to conclude that such an employee should be considered for reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, as recently decided by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, such is not always the case.

An employee worked for Bloomberg L.P. as a sales representative in the U.S. market. Between 2011 and 2013, he suffered migraines that left him temporarily incapacitated, which impaired his work ability and his life activities, generally. Around the same time, the employee received poor performance reviews. The company identified several deficiencies and strategies for improvement.

In 2013, the employee made several requests to transfer to Asia, as he believed his performance would improve based on his interests and experience in the region. In May 2013, the employee submitted a doctor's note stating that the employee's migraine condition could result in "serious health consequences." The note further stated that work-related stress was a trigger for the migraines and that "[absent] a change in his current work environment … a medical leave of absence … alone will not significantly mitigate this stress."

In turn, the employee requested as an accommodation that he be permitted to perform his same job but under different supervision. The company declined the request and, following a subsequent poor performance review and written warning, fired the employee.

He sued and alleged that he was discriminated against under the ADA due to his migraines. The lower court granted summary judgment to the company. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the employee did not suffer from a "disability" as defined by the ADA.

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Accommodating Employees' Disabilities]

The appeals court noted that medical conditions that substantially limit an employee's ability to work are protected by the ADA. Nonetheless, a medical condition that merely limits an employee from working in just one situation—for example, under a particular supervisor—does not amount to an ADA-recognized disability.

The court opined that an employee's "inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working." Rather, an employee must show that "his condition precludes him from working in a class or broad range of jobs."

The 2nd Circuit concluded that nothing in the 2008 amendments to the ADA, which broadened the definition of an ADA disability, give rise to a different result.

Because the employee admitted he could do the same job so long as the supervision was different, he was not disabled in the major life activity of working. As such, the ADA did not apply to him.

Woolf v. Strada, 2nd Cir., No. 19-860 (Feb. 6, 2020).

Professional Pointer: Disability and accommodation issues can be some of the most challenging for employers. Particular care must be taken when denying an accommodation based on a determination of whether a condition is a legally protected "disability." Particularly under state and local laws that define the term more broadly, an adverse employment action based on an assumption that a disability is not protected can be a costly error.

Scott M. Wich is an attorney with Clifton Budd & DeMaria LLP in New York City.

[Visit SHRM's resource page on the Americans with Disabilities Act.]