Blog

Questions About Disability Status at Interview Does Not Constitutes Grounds for ADA Claim.

Posted by: Melville Johnson, P.C.
June 16, 2008
Topic: Employment Discrimination

The Law Office of Melville Johnson, P.C., can provide representation involving allegations of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act:

Ms. Jourdean Lorah sued Tetra Tech, Inc. ("Tetra"), alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Ms. Lorah's work relationship with Tetra began as a temporary staffer under an employment agreement she signed with Synerfac Technical Staffing ("Synerfac"). While at Tetra, Ms. Lorah claimed that she was not given the training she was promised, was demoted, was moved from her work station, and was harassed.

Ms. Lorah first complained to Synerfac and thereafter, her contract with Synerfac was subsequently terminated, along with her position at Tetra. Ms. Lorah then filed a complaint of retaliation with the EEOC and filed a charge of discrimination with the Delaware Department of Labor, asserting retaliation and discrimination based on sex, age and disability. Ms. Lorah asserted that Tetra had caused Synerfac to terminate her contract.

The EEOC issued Ms. Lorah her right to sue letter, and Ms. Lorah filed suit in District Court. Tetra filed a F.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Lorah was not its employee and thus, she had failed to articulate claims against Tetra. The District Court acknowledged that Ms. Lorah's ability to pursue her claims against Tetra under Title VII and the ADA hinged on whether Tetra was actually Ms. Lorah's employer. The District Court looked to the twelve-part test in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992), to determine if Ms. Lorah was an employee of Tetra. The District Court focused its attention on examining the level of control Tetra asserted over Ms. Lorah. The District Court concluded that it was possible that both Synerfac and Tetra could be employers, and therefore Ms. Lorah's complaint would not be dismissed on that basis.

Ms. Lorah had based her disability discrimination claim merely on being asked if she had a disability at the time she was interviewed. The District Court held that she failed to state a claim under the ADA by showing that she had a disability, that she was a "qualified individual", and that she suffered an adverse employment decision due to a disability. The District Court also held that she failed to allege a gender discrimination claim by claiming only that a female colleague had been treated better than her and then also claiming that she had not been treated well because she was female.

When addressing Ms. Lorah's retaliation claim, the District Court looked to causation and held that the timing of eight days between Ms. Lorah's complaint of harassment and her termination was sufficient to raise an inference of causation. The District Court further held that Ms. Lorah satisfied the requirements for alleging age discrimination and therefore her ADEA claim could not be dismissed.

The District Court thus granted the motion to dismiss the ADA and Title VII gender discrimination claims, and denied the motion to dismiss the ADEA and retaliation claims.

The information in this summary was primarily derived from the Judicial View



The Grant Building
Suite 222
44 Broad Street N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone 404.524.9111
Toll Free 877.524.9111

Let us help you stand up for your rights.
Call us at 404.524.9111
or toll free at 877.524.9111 today.


FirmSite® designed and hosted by Thomson-FindLaw.