Share
In Spath v. Berry Plastics Corp., 900 F. Supp. 893 (N.D. Ohio 1995), the district court denied summary judgment to the defendant as the plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of a "perceived" disability.
Spath was a female sales manager for Mammoth, which was taken over by Berry Plastics Corp. (Berry) in February 1992. During the takeover, Spath, who was a significant contributor to Mammoth's dairy container sales, suffered a broken ankle requiring surgery. After surgery, Spath worked at Berry's Iowa Falls plant, where she reversed a loss of business due to the takeover. In August, Spath underwent more surgery, after which she could not walk, drive, or travel, but was able to conduct business by phone. Shortly thereafter, Berry's vice president, Bell, called Spath and was verbally abusive. He prodded her to "get on the road" even though she was able to make calls from her home, a common practice of other sales people.
Immediately after the takeover, Bell did not give Spath assignments because she "just broke her leg." He never assessed her relationships with customers as he did with other sales people because "she couldn't travel." He made no effort to identify Spath's skills and abilities because "she had a broken leg." He also did not give her a raise because of her injury. In September 1992, Spath was terminated. Bell testified this was due to economic reasons. Spath sued Berry for employment discrimination under the ADA. Berry moved for summary judgment.
The district court noted that the ADA makes it unlawful to discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability. A "qualified individual with a disability" is "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position." The term "disability" means: (a) a physical or mental impairment that affects one or more of the major life activities; (b) a record of such impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such impairment. Major life activities include functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, . . . and working. The court observed that a prima facie case of discrimination required Spath to show that: (1) she was "disabled" under the ADA; (2) she was qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the functions of her job; and (3) Berry discriminated against her in regard to advancement, discharge, compensation, or other terms of employment.
Regarding the "disability" element, the district court noted that Spath was not "actually" disabled, as temporary impairments, such as broken bones, are not ADA disabilities. However, the court found that Berry "regarded" Spath as being disabled, based on Bell's conduct regarding her leg, including: (1) not giving her assignments; (2) not assessing her abilities or customer relationships; (3) not giving her a raise; and (4) not asking her to relocate. The court reasoned that because her "perceived" disability affected the major life activities of walking and performing manual tasks, she was disabled under the ADA.
Regarding the "qualified" element, the district court found that Spath was qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of her job. The court noted Spath's employment history with Mammoth, and Bell's prodding of Spath to "get on the road" even though she was able to make calls from home. The court found that Bell could have accommodated her injury because other sales people at Berry used their homes as their business location.
Regarding the third element, the district court found that Berry discriminated against Spath in regard to advancement, employee compensation, and discharge. The court based this on Bell's failure to assess Spath's abilities and refusal to give her a raise due to her broken leg. Thus, the court held that Spath established a prima facie case of employment discrimination. The court added that the burden then shifted to Berry to show an inability to accommodate Spath. However, because Berry did not produce any evidence on this matter, the court found that issues of material fact existed and that summary judgment was unwarranted.
Spath v. Berry Plastics Corp., 900 F. Supp. 893 (N.D. Ohio 1995).