Wulff v. Sentara Healthcare, Inc. (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Wulff v. Sentara Healthcare, Inc., No. 12–1262 (4th Cir. Mar. 4, 2013)

In this disability discrimination case, an appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a health care corporation on a nurse’s claims for failure to accommodate, discriminatory termination, and retaliatory termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

The nurse worked at one of the corporation’s hospital’s emergency departments. In September 2009, she presented her employer with a doctor’s note, which restricted her from lifting more than ten pounds with her left arm for six weeks. The corporation accommodated this restriction. In December 2009, another doctor’s note extended the lifting restriction for an additional six weeks.

In March 2010, the corporation asked the nurse to update her restrictions. She returned a form with far stricter restrictions than before, including restrictions on pushing, pulling, climbing, and stretching and working above her shoulders. The corporation could not accommodate these restrictions and removed the nurse from the work schedule until the restrictions dissipated. Months later, the nurse informed the corporation that the restrictions had been lifted. It offered her an opportunity to return to work, but she never responded.

She then filed this lawsuit. However, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the corporation, because it found that the nurse could not perform the essential functions of her position.

The appellate court affirmed. With respect to the failure to accommodate claim, the nurse had to show that, with reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions of the position. The nurse admitted in her deposition during discovery that her position required her to lift, push, or pull some amount of weight. Thus, her March 2010 form revealed that she could not perform some of the essential functions of her job, and summary judgment was appropriate on her claim.

As to the nurse’s discriminatory termination claim, the nurse had to establish that she fell within the ADA’s protected class, in other words, be “a qualified individual” with a disability. A “qualified individual” is someone who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position.” Because the court found that the nurse was unable to perform the essential functions of her position, as discussed above, she could not maintain a discriminatory termination claim.

Finally, with respect to the nurse’s retaliatory termination claim, the nurse had to produce evidence that (1) she engaged in protected activity, (2) Sentara took adverse action against her, and (3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Afterwards, the corporation had to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination of her employment. Even assuming that the nurse established a prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination, the corporation had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination of her employment, because she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job. For those reasons, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the corporation on all of the nurse’s ADA claims