Workers' comp waiver shows adverse employment action

According to the 6th Circuit, requiring an employee with a disability to waive workers' compensation benefits otherwise available to employees without disabilities "smacks" of the type of discrimination the ADA seeks to protect.

Case name: Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors, No. 08-6200/09-5722/09-6553 (6th Cir. 03/08/11, unpublished).

Ruling: In an unpublished decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a door manufacturer under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The 6th Circuit also affirmed the District Court's rulings on post-verdict motions by the parties.

What it means: According to the 6th Circuit, requiring an employee with a disability to waive workers' compensation benefits otherwise available to employees without disabilities "smacks" of the type of discrimination the ADA seeks to protect.

Summary: A forklift operator for a door manufacturer had an enlarged heart, which required him to have a pacemaker installed. When he sought to return to work, concerns were raised about whether the work environment might affect the pacemaker. A doctor opined that the operator could return to work if he wore an alarm that indicated the presence of high electromagnetic fields. The manufacturer notified the operator that it did not consider the alarm a reasonable accommodation because he would have difficulty hearing it in the facility. Pursuant to state law, the manufacturer proposed that the operator waive his rights to workers' compensation benefits arising from injuries caused by his heart condition. He sued under the ADA of 1990. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held the operator was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation.

The court found the manufacturer regarded the operator as disabled. The manufacturer was not simply relying on the operator's doctor's medical advice but was giving effect to its own motivations.

The court also rejected the manufacturer's argument that making the operator sign the workers' compensation waiver -- pursuant to pre-ADA state law -- was not an adverse employment action. It was not unreasonable for a jury to conclude that the action was precipitated by the operator's insistence on an accommodation. However, precedent bound the court to conclude that a "regarded as" disability precluded the manufacturer's obligation to reasonably accommodate the operator. The court explained that imposing liability on employers who fail to accommodate nondisabled employees who are regarded as disabled would lead to bizarre results.

The court also held the operator was subjected to retaliation. The court said a reasonable jury could conclude that the true motivation for the manufacturer's action was to save the company medical payments from its self-insured workers' compensation plan. The court upheld the awards of damages and fees to the operator.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

View the original article here

Player's regular employment in Maryland wins him disability benefits

Maryland has jurisdiction of a football player's workers' compensation claim when the employment in the state is regular, and not intermittent or temporary, and when the purpose of his employment is to play in Maryland.
Case name: Pro-Football, Inc. et al. v. Tupa, No. 1839 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 02/28/11).
Ruling: The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that Maryland held jurisdiction for a football player's injury and he was entitled to disability benefits.
What it means: Maryland has jurisdiction of a football player's workers' compensation claim when the employment in the state is regular, and not intermittent or temporary, and when the purpose of his employment is to play in Maryland.
Summary: A Washington Redskins player had mild lower back pain. A doctor determined that he had chronic degenerative disk disease, but it would not affect his ability to play in the next season since he completed the previous season with the same condition. During a pre-game warm-up in Maryland, the player landed awkwardly after a punt and felt a sharp pain in his lower back. His pain persisted the rest of the season despite treatment with medication and physical therapy. The player sought benefits. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that Maryland held jurisdiction over the player's claim and he was entitled to disability benefits.
The employer argued that Maryland did not have jurisdiction over the player's injury because he was employed primarily in Virginia. The court found that the player's employment in Maryland was regular and not intermittent or temporary. The player was hired in Virginia, but the purpose of his employment was to play 10 games per season in Maryland and other games around the country. The court acknowledged that the player likely spent more time at the practice facility in Virginia, but the purpose of his employment was to play in games.
The player's contract stated that jurisdiction for any claims should lie in Virginia, but the court said that the clause would contravene Maryland's public policy. Maryland jurisdiction was proper.
The employer further asserted that the player's injury was not accidental and was not the cause of his disability. The court said that medical testimony supported the conclusion that the player suffered a sudden, traumatic injury when he landed awkwardly before a game. He immediately sought medical attention and did not play in the game. Before the game, he had only intermittent symptoms and was cleared to play by a doctor. The court also found the injury was causally related to the accident.
Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.
View the original article here