Legal Corner

ADA
Two different rulings on failure to accommodate claims

In Beasley v. O'Reilly Auto Parts, a deaf employee worked as a materials handler. Before his evening shift, there was a brief meeting to discuss the tasks, review concerns, and provide safety information. Since he could not hear, he asked the supervisor to send him text messages summarizing the meetings. While the supervisor agreed, he did not follow through.

Also, he received a disciplinary warning for being absent for a period he thought was approved and a time when he was sick. He requested an interpreter to discuss the disciplinary write-up, but the company did not provide one and there was a negative resolution. He subsequently received additional warnings for attendance and resigned. Then he filed suit alleging discrimination in violation of the ADA.

The court found that the inability to understand or participate in the pre-shift meetings and not having an interpreter to help resolve his disputes about absences adversely affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment. The company argued these were not essential functions of his job, but the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and determined the case could proceed to trial.

In Hannah v. United Parcel Service Inc., a UPS driver suffered injuries to his lower back, hip, and buttocks. He requested an accommodation of a smaller vehicle with less capacity or an inside job until he could return to his normal route. The company discussed the options with the employee and determined a change in vehicle and route would violate the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) under which he had bid for his route. They also advised there were no inside jobs open for which he was qualified, but they would consider him if one became available. The company allowed him to retain his job and take leave without pay until he could return to work.

When he returned to work, he sued under the ADA, alleging that his employer's refusal to provide him with the accommodation he requested violated the statute. On appeal, the 4th Circuit agreed with the district court that granted summary judgment for the employer, concluding that the employee had not shown the accommodations he requested were reasonable. He did not offer a solution to the CBA violations created by his proposal, he did not show there was an inside job vacancy, and he would not be able to perform the essential job functions of fulfilling his route deliveries.

Workers Compensation
Civil remedy denied to injured school volunteer - California

In Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District, the 3rd District Court of Appeal held that the exclusive remedy provision barred a school volunteer from pursuing a civil remedy for catastrophic injuries she sustained when she fell from an auditorium stage while judging a spelling bee. While the Labor Code bars an employee from pursuing a civil remedy for a work-related injury, generally, volunteers cannot be deemed employees.

However, the state's labor code provides that volunteers of statutorily identified organizations, such as school districts, can be employees for workers' compensation purposes if the governing board of the district adopts a specifically worded resolution. The court noted the governing board of the district had passed such a resolution in 1968 and board members and staff do not have to be aware of it for it to apply. Further, board members do not need to directly control and direct a volunteer's actions.

Firefighter's widow improperly denied benefits - Florida

In Siena v. Orange County Fire Rescue, the county denied death benefits to the widow of a firefighter, who died from brain cancer, because he had received medical and indemnity benefits, along with a one-time $25,000 payment received at the time of his diagnosis. The appeals court noted that these benefits fell under a section of the law that "explicitly permits firefighters - not their dependents or beneficiaries - to claim medical treatment and a one-time cash payout upon diagnosis," and does not affect the right to death benefits.

Manager's failed efforts at back manipulation not a work-caused injury - Florida

In East Coast Waffles, Inc. v. Haselden, a grill cook had worked a double shift and was experiencing severe back pain. His manager offered to help by "popping" his back, but it eventually caused more pain and he was diagnosed with lumbar radiculopathy. While the Judge of Compensation Claims awarded the cook medical benefits, the Appeals Court disagreed.

It found the cook failed to establish that the injuries from the back manipulation were caused by the work he performed for Waffle House. "This is because chapter 440 does not cover workplace injuries; it covers work-caused injuries." He had allowed his manager, who was not a chiropractor and who had no medical training, to manipulate his back, which was not an employer-provided risk.

Worker cannot sue employer after receiving comp benefits in another state - Massachusetts

In Ryan Ward v. Christopher M. Schnurr & others, a Rhode Island firm was hired to demolish and remove a garage on residential property in Massachusetts. An employee, who lived in Rhode Island, suffered serious injuries to both his legs when the wall of the dilapidated and partially collapsed garage fell on him. He sought comp benefits from his company and began a negligence action against the company's principal and the homeowner. Initially, he was denied comp benefits on the basis that he was an independent contractor, but before the case went to trial the parties settled for a lump-sum payment of $19,000 and he signed an agreement releasing the company.

The tort case made its way to the state Supreme Court, which found the exclusive remedy applied. Both states bar any other recovery once an injured worker has received a payment. In the same ruling, the court found that a homeowner who hires a firm to remedy an obvious hazardous condition on her property does not owe the same duty of care to the contractor as she might to another person lawfully on her property.

Widow proves causal connection between husband's fatal heart attack and work - New York

For death benefits to be paid a death must be causally related to the worker's employment, which can be complicated when there are preexisting conditions. In Polonski v. Town of Islip, a highway maintenance crew leader had spinal fusion surgery and requested less strenuous work when he returned to the job. He was assigned to perform demolition work on a facility bathroom, left work feeling exhausted, and was called back nine hours later to clear snow from roadways.

The next day he reported feeling fatigued with chest pains and shortly later was found unresponsive in the break room. While there is a rebuttable presumption of compensability for an unwitnessed or unexplained death that occurs during the course of employment, the autopsy report cited multiple contributing factors. Thus, the spouse had the burden to prove that work activities were a contributing factor. Although the medical testimony acknowledged preexisting heart disease and acute Oxycodone intoxication, it also showed work activities played a direct role.

Denial of benefits for parking lot injury overturned - New York

In Espinoza v. City Safety Compliance Corp., a manager in charge of monitoring a construction site had signed out and crossed the public street to a construction area he was responsible for monitoring. He had been instructed to park in this area because of the pandemic, injured his shoulder while pulling a gate to enter the area, and required surgery.

In general, accidents that occur outside of work hours and in public areas away from the workplace are not compensable and a law judge disallowed the claim and the Workers Compensation Board affirmed. While The Appellate Division's 3rd Department acknowledged that the parking area was not part of the construction site and the accident happened after the end of his shift, it noted he was instructed to park there and the general contractor stored building materials in the area and restricted the public's access. Thus, there was a sufficient nexus in time and place between the construction site and the parking area such that the place of employment extended to the parking area where the injury occurred.

Leave time must be allowed for medical appointments under CBA - Pennsylvania

In Lehigh County v. Deputy Sheriffs' Association, the Commonwealth Court upheld an arbitration award for a sheriff's deputy who said her employer violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) when it took away leave time because she attended medical appointments for a work injury during work hours. The deputy had suffered a compensable torn ligament and after a brief leave, continued outpatient rehabilitation, with some appointments during her scheduled work shifts. The county took away some of her accrued leave time after she ignored the directive to schedule appointments during non-work hours.

She filed a grievance, and an arbitrator found for the Lehigh County Deputy Sheriffs' Association on her behalf, determining that the county violated the collective bargaining agreement.

Injury during physical therapy session compensable - Tennessee

In Clayton Rash v. Fine Line Transportation, LLC, a truck driver broke his wrist and received comp benefits, including physical therapy. During physical therapy, he allegedly injured his shoulder and sought additional benefits. His doctor referred him to a shoulder surgeon, but his employer denied the referral. Instead, it provided a panel of orthopedic surgeons to treat the left shoulder and authorized treatment with another doctor.

The doctor found a left rotator cuff tear primarily caused by doing snow angel exercises and recommended surgery and assigned work restrictions of no use of the left arm until surgery, which the company did not accommodate. The company denied the surgery and obtained another physician's opinion, which noted that snow angels were unlikely to cause a torn rotator cuff. However, he acknowledged the injury could be related to the initial fall or the physical therapy session. Therefore, the comp court allowed medical and temporary disability benefits for the shoulder injury because the driver was likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits of the secondary injury claim.