Share
In Sawinski v. Bill Currie Ford, Inc., the district court addressed alleged violations of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that: (1) plaintiff had disabilities under the ADA; (2) plaintiff's attendance records did not disqualify him from being a qualified individual with a disability; and (3) issues existed as to reasonable accommodation of the disability.
In 1986, Sawinski underwent surgery for a brain tumor, which resulted in cranial disfigurement, deafness, and an ongoing need for medication. Following surgery, he returned to his position as a truck salesman at Bill Currie Ford (BCF). Sawinski alleged that shortly before his termination in October 1992, he was told that his medical treatments were so expensive that the company was in danger of losing its medical coverage, or having its rates increased. After he was terminated, Sawinski sued BCF alleging that it failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation for his disability.
The district court observed that the ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability. The ADA defines disability as a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities" The court found that Sawinski's disfigurement and deafness were physical impairments. The court also found that hearing and working were major life activities, and concluded that Sawinski was disabled under the ADA.
The district court addressed BCF's contention that Sawinski was not a "qualified individual with a disability." To meet the definition, a plaintiff must show that he is an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position. BCF contended that Sawinski could not meet the attendance requirements of the position and, therefore, was not a qualified individual. BCF based its contention on Tyndall v. National Educ. Ctrs., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that a person is not qualified when they are absent for nearly forty days out of a seven-month period). The court found that Tyndall was not controlling in the present case since the facts were different. In this case, Sawinski was late seven times and absent once over a 12-year period. Thus, the court found that an issue of fact existed as to whether Sawinski could perform the essential elements of his job even though he missed some work.
The district court also addressed BCF's argument that even if Sawinski was qualified, he failed to show that BCF discriminated against him. The court noted that discrimination under the ADA includes a failure to make reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual, unless such accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Sawinski alleged that BCF failed to accommodate his disfigurement, deafness, and memory loss. BCF admits that it did not permit Sawinski to wear a hat to cover his disfigurement, but claimed that it did accommodate his hearing and memory loss. Thus, the court found that issues of fact remained regarding reasonable accommodation and denied summary judgment on this matter.
Sawinski v. Bill Currie Ford, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 1571 (M.D. Fla. 1995).