Dismissal of Employee's Disability Discrimination Claims Upheld

A regional sales manager with depression and anxiety could not establish disability discrimination because his disability prevented him from working, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

In 2000, the plaintiff started working for a subsidiary of the Barnes Group Inc., a global provider of highly engineered products, differentiated industrial technologies and innovative solutions, as a regional sales manager. He then became a business development manager for another Barnes subsidiary. The plaintiff experienced significant stress in this role.

In October 2016, the plaintiff suffered a panic attack and requested a leave of absence through Jan. 18, 2017. Barnes approved that request. The plaintiff later requested an extension of his leave through June 13, 2017, which Barnes also approved.

During this leave, the plaintiff was prescribed a regimen of medication for depression and anxiety, underwent four to six months of therapy, started meditating, and developed relationships and activities outside work. By March 20, 2017, he told his health care provider that he was better and returned to work early on April 1, 2017.

Shortly after his return, the plaintiff's supervisor told him that Barnes had eliminated his position and created a new position for him as a "corporate account manager" or "regional sales manager," which the plaintiff viewed as a demotion. Although his salary and benefits did not change, he was placed on a different incentive compensation program. The next month, the plaintiff noticed during a conference call that an organizational chart listed his old position as open. The plaintiff claimed that Barnes also raised his sales quota by $2 million, which he believed was done to make him fail and provide a reason to discipline or terminate him.

The plaintiff's supervisor gave him a rating of "below expectations" for his 2016 performance evaluation, but admitted that the plaintiff was not at the company to develop goals and objectives because he was on leave. In May 2017, an executive told the plaintiff that he would have been a "risk" to Barnes in his old position because he could have had "a heart attack or stroke."

The plaintiff's new supervisor requested a meeting with the plaintiff in July 2017. Two days before the meeting, the plaintiff suffered another panic attack and requested leave through Oct. 18, 2017. Barnes denied the request and told the plaintiff to return to work in August 2017, and to contact HR if he believed an accommodation would help him. He did not do so.

Instead, the plaintiff sent Barnes a request for more leave. Barnes' attorney sent the plaintiff's attorney a letter stating that Barnes had decided to terminate the plaintiff's employment. The plaintiff claimed that Barnes did not fire him at that time, but that he instead remained on leave.

On Jan. 9, 2018, a psychologist submitted a return-to-work certification for the plaintiff. On Jan. 17, 2018, Barnes sent the plaintiff a letter confirming his termination. The letter noted that he had begun to take leave in July 2017 and had been on leave ever since, and that his medical issues had kept him from performing his job.

The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against Barnes, alleging wrongful termination, failure to accommodate and a hostile work environment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Barnes removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment because the plaintiff admitted that, since July 2017, he was completely disabled and unable to work. The district court granted the motion.

The plaintiff appealed to the 4th Circuit. In that appeal, the plaintiff claimed that in 2017 he would have been able to keep working were it not for Barnes' mistreatment of him. Yet the 4th Circuit agreed with Barnes that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual with a disability, and upheld the dismissal of his wrongful termination and failure-to-accommodate claims.

Yet the 4th Circuit ruled that the plaintiff could pursue his hostile work environment claim because it preceded his inability to work. However, the plaintiff could not show that Barnes' alleged mistreatment was severe or pervasive. While he found evidence during litigation that Barnes viewed him as a legal liability upon his return, the court found that this could not establish harassment because the plaintiff did not know this at the time. The court thus upheld the district court's grant of summary judgment.

Jessup v. Barnes Group Inc., 4th Cir., No. 20-1801 (Jan. 19, 2022).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.